K2M Investments Pty Ltd v Unita (Qld) Pty Ltd

The case of K2M Investments Pty Ltd v Unita (Qld) Pty Ltd involves a dispute between the applicant, K2M, and the respondent, Unita. The primary issue in this case is whether the statutory demand issued by Unita is valid, specifically focusing on whether there is a genuine dispute as to the existence of the debt claimed by Unita. The court was tasked with determining the admissibility of supplementary affidavits filed beyond the statutory 21-day period and whether the statutory demand constitutes an abuse of process. The matter was heard in the Queensland state court, where K2M sought to set aside the statutory demand.

The legal issues the court needed to address include the scope of evidence K2M could present to demonstrate a genuine dispute regarding the debt. Additionally, the court had to assess whether K2M’s evidence substantiated a genuine dispute concerning the debt, taking into account Unita's arguments. Another critical issue was whether the statutory demand constituted an abuse of process. The court also examined the principles governing supplementary affidavits filed after the statutory 21-day period, referencing the Graywinter principle.

The court’s reasoning involved a detailed examination of the evidence presented by K2M, particularly focusing on the supplementary affidavit filed outside the 21-day period. The court held that the supplementary affidavit introduced a new ground for setting aside the statutory demand, which was not delineated in the initial supporting affidavit. According to the established legal principles, a supplementary affidavit filed beyond the statutory period cannot raise new grounds for setting aside a statutory demand. The court concluded that the supplementary affidavit did indeed raise a new ground, which was inconsistent with the initial supporting affidavit. Therefore, the application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.