LB Schofields One Pty Ltd v Trevet Property Pty Ltd, in the matter of LB Schofields One Pty Ltd

In the case of LB Schofields One Pty Ltd v Trevet Property Pty Ltd, in the matter of LB Schofields One Pty Ltd, the court addressed the issue of statutory demands issued by Trevet Property Pty Ltd against LB Schofields One Pty Ltd and LB Developments Group Pty Ltd, concerning debts allegedly owed for services rendered in connection with property transactions. The primary legal issue was whether the statutory demands should be set aside due to the existence of a genuine dispute over the debt, a defect in the statutory demands, or a defect in the verifying affidavits. The court also considered whether there was a defect that would result in substantial injustice and if the statutory demands involved conduct that was unconscionable or an abuse of process.

The court found that there was a genuine dispute regarding the existence or amount of the debt. LB Schofields One Pty Ltd and LB Developments Group Pty Ltd argued that the terms of the agreement, the nature of the services provided by Trevet, and the quantum of the debt were in dispute. The court accepted that Trevet had not provided a written agency agreement as required by the Property, Stock and Business Agents Act 2002 (NSW), thus rendering any commission claim unenforceable. The court concluded that there was a substantial injustice because of the lack of a written agreement and the unenforceability of the commission claim, warranting the setting aside of the statutory demands. Consequently, the court ordered that the statutory demands be set aside and that Trevet pay the costs of the proceedings for both LB Schofields One Pty Ltd and LB Developments Group Pty Ltd.

The final orders of the court were to set aside the statutory demands issued to both LB Schofields One Pty Ltd and LB Developments Group Pty Ltd under section 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and to require Trevet to pay the costs of the proceedings for both companies. The court emphasized that the setting aside of the statutory demands was necessary to prevent an abuse of the statutory process and to maintain the integrity of the legal proceedings.