In the matter of Selin Australia Pty Limited

Selin Australia Pty Limited was the subject of an application by a creditor to wind up the company pursuant to sections 459G and 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The defendant contested the application, asserting that the statutory demand was served beyond the statutory 21-day period, as per sections 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) and 160 of the Evidence Act 1901 (Cth). The crux of the defendant's argument was that the plaintiff's registered office, which was the premises of its accountants, had mail diverted to a post office box. This raised questions about the validity of the service of the statutory demand.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of sections 29 and 160 of the respective Acts. The defendant argued that the statutory demand was served outside the required timeframe, invoking the presumptions under these sections. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff's offsetting claim under section 459H(1)(b) of the Corporations Act was adequately substantiated. This involved scrutinising the factual basis for the amount of the offsetting claim, which the defendant contended was not sufficiently established.

The court held that the presumptions under sections 29 and 160 were not rebutted, confirming that the statutory demand was served outside the statutory 21-day period. Moreover, the court found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently established the factual basis for its offsetting claim. Consequently, the court set aside the statutory demand. This decision underscored the importance of strict adherence to statutory timeframes and the necessity for clear and compelling evidence to support offsetting claims.

The final orders of the court were that the statutory demand be set aside and the application for winding up be dismissed. The court's ruling emphasised the stringent requirements for statutory compliance and evidentiary support in proceedings under the Corporations Act.