In the matter of Wy Trading Pty Limited
[2013] NSWSC 122
•05 February 2013
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Wy Trading Pty Limited [2013] NSWSC 122 Hearing dates: 5 February 2013 Decision date: 05 February 2013 Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Corporations List Before: Black J Decision: Originating Process dismissed. Plaintiff to pay the defendants costs.
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS - Debts - Statutory demand - Whether reliance on s 459H(1)(a) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to set aside statutory demand - Whether genuine dispute. Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 459H(1)(a), 459H(1)(b) Cases Cited: - 2 Roslyn Street Pty Ltd v Leisure Inn Hospitality Management Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 512
- Edge Technology Pty Ltd v Lite-on Technology Corporation [2000] NSWSC 471; (2000) 34 ACSR 301
- Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 785
- Mibor Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1994) 2 VR 290; (1993) 11 ACSR 362Category: Principal judgment Parties: Wy Trading Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
Cui Li Wang (Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
S. Sher (sol) (Defendant)
Solicitors:
LAC Lawyers Pty Limited (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2012/255877
Judgment - EX TEMPORE
By originating process dated 16 August 2012, the Plaintiff, Wy Trading Pty Limited ("Company") seeks to set aside a statutory demand ("Demand"), served on it by the Defendants, Cui Li Wang and Zhi Hua Yan.
The originating process does not identify the basis on which the application is brought, which could include at least a contention that there is a genuine demand as to the debt claimed for the purposes of s 459H(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) or an offsetting claim under s 459H(1)(b) of the Corporations Act. There was no appearance for the Company when the matter was called for hearing today. While the company had filed an affidavit of a director, Mr Dong Wang, in support of its application to set aside the Demand, that affidavit was not read.
The Defendants relied on an affidavit of Ms Wang dated 28 September 2012 and also tendered the Demand and contemporaneous documents in respect of the dealings between the Company and the Defendants. The Demand claimed an amount of $103,420 as set out in a schedule made up of hiring fees of $54,925 pursuant to a hiring agreement dated 14 September 2009 and unpaid rent of $48,495 pursuant to a lease also dated 14 September 2009.
The Demand was supported, as required, by an affidavit of Ms Wang dated 28 July 2012. A copy of the hiring agreement and lease agreement were attached to that affidavit. Ms Wang deposed in that affidavit that the Company had made only partial payments of the hiring fee and rental due under the lease since September 2011 and that she believed there was no genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt.
Ms Wang's affidavit dated 28 September 2012, read in the proceedings, referred to a receipt book for rent collection from the Company which recorded the running balance due and the Defendants relied on that record to contend that the last payment made by the Company was made on 11 May 2012. Importantly, the receipts which were tendered in evidence by the Defendants recorded not only when payments were received but also occasions on which payments were due but not made and indicated a running balance on the occasions on which payments were due but not made. The running balance as at 16 July 2012 reconciles to the amount claimed in the Demand. These documents together with the absence of evidence of the Company to support the contention that there is a genuine dispute as to the amount claimed in the Demand, provides strong support for the view that there is no such genuine dispute.
That conclusion is reinforced by screen shots of text messages exchanged between Ms Wang and Mr Dong Wang which, variously, request payment with Mr Dong Wang responding "I am working hard to try to pay back your account"; refer to underpayment of amounts due, to which Mr Dong Wang responds, not by denying such under payment or contending that the amounts had been paid but instead that "I have haven't fixed the money required"; requesting payments to which Mr Dong Wang responds "I will find money to pay you back"; and claiming to have been let down repeatedly and requesting payment, to which Mr Dong Wang responds that he had been endeavouring to pay and identifying various difficulties in doing so. The Defendants also rely on a text message dated 22 June 2012 demanding payment, to which Mr Dong Wang responds "Sorry about that, when can we make new arrangement". It is striking that, throughout the course of these exchanges, there is no contention by Mr Dong Wang that the Company has paid the amounts due and no challenge to the clear statements made by Ms Wang that amounts were outstanding.
In the absence of evidence by the Company to support its application to set aside the Demand, and having regard to Ms Wang's evidence to which I have referred, it is not necessary to review the authorities as to when a genuine dispute as to a debt is established at any length. However, I should nonetheless say something as to that question. On the assumption that the Company relied on s 459H(1)(a) of the Corporations Act to set aside the Demand on the basis that there was a genuine dispute as to the existence or amount of the debt, the Court would need to be satisfied that the relevant dispute was not "plainly vexatious or frivolous" or "may have some substance" or "involved a plausible contention requiring investigation", and the applicable test is similar to that which would apply in an application for an interlocutory injunction or summary judgment: Mibor Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1994) 2 VR 290; (1993) 11 ACSR 362, Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 785-787; Edge Technology Pty Ltd v Lite-on Technology Corporation [2000] NSWSC 471; (2000) 34 ACSR 301 at [28]. That test was recently summarised by Ward J in 2 Roslyn Street Pty Ltd v Leisure Inn Hospitality Management Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 512 at [70] as follows:
"A genuine dispute is therefore one which is bona fide and truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical, illusory or misconceived. It is exists where there is a plausible contention which places the debt in dispute and requires further investigation."
If the Court is satisfied that a genuine dispute exists, it must either calculate the substantiated amount of the debt by deducting any disputed amounts, or set aside the Demand if the substantiated amount is less than the statutory minimum.
In the present case, there is no evidence before me that suggests that there is a genuine dispute as to the Debt or that there is any plausible contention which places the debt in dispute. The Company has not sought to support the application to set aside the Demand today. The evidence before me in Ms Wang's affidavit supporting the Demand and Ms Wang's affidavit in these proceedings is consistent with the existence of the debt.
It may be that the Demand was sought to be set aside by reference to an offsetting claim under s 459H(1)(b) of the Corporations Act. However, no evidence was led before me to identify the basis of any such offsetting claim, and in the absence of such evidence, no such claim is established.
Accordingly, I order that:
1. The originating process filed on 16 August 2012 be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the proceedings, as agreed or as assessed.
**********
Decision last updated: 11 March 2013
0
6
1