Lewis v Nortex Pty Ltd (In Liq); Lamru Pty Ltd v Kation Pty Ltd

The respondents, Lamru Pty Ltd and Kation Pty Ltd, sought to set aside a statutory demand issued by Nortex Pty Ltd in liquidation, on the basis that the debt claimed was unliquidated, unenforceable, or otherwise not payable. The applicants, Lewis, a former employee of Nortex, and Lamru, a related entity, sought to enforce the statutory demand, claiming that Nortex was entitled to payment of a substantial sum. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues in the case were whether the misconduct of Lamru and Lewis in relation to the statutory demand was such that they were not entitled to equitable relief, and whether the debt claimed by Nortex was unliquidated or unenforceable.

The court held that the misconduct of Lamru and Lewis was directly related to the equity they were seeking, and therefore barred them from relief. The court found that Lamru and Lewis had engaged in conduct that was immediately and necessarily related to the equity they were seeking, which was the setting aside of the statutory demand. The court held that the principle of "he who seeks equity must do equity" applied, and that Lamru and Lewis were not entitled to equitable relief because of their misconduct. The court also found that the debt claimed by Nortex was not unliquidated or unenforceable, and that Nortex was entitled to payment of the full amount claimed.

The court dismissed the application to set aside the statutory demand and ordered that the respondents pay the full amount claimed by Nortex, plus interest and costs. The court held that the misconduct of Lamru and Lewis in relation to the statutory demand was such that they were not entitled to equitable relief, and that the debt claimed by Nortex was not unliquidated or unenforceable. The court's decision was based on well-established principles of equity, and provides useful guidance for parties seeking to enforce or defend against statutory demands in similar circumstances.