Millerview Constructions Pty Ltd v Palmer Plumbing Pty Ltd

Millerview Constructions Pty Ltd applied to set aside a statutory demand served by Palmer Plumbing Pty Ltd, alleging that the demand was invalid for procedural reasons. The dispute reached the court, which was tasked with determining whether the application to set aside the demand was served correctly within the required timeframe. The central legal issue was whether the statutory requirements of s 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were complied with. Specifically, the court had to decide whether the application to set aside the demand was validly served on Palmer Plumbing Pty Ltd within 21 days of the statutory demand being served on Millerview Constructions Pty Ltd.

The court examined the wording of s 459G, focusing on the phrase "the person who served the demand on the company". It considered whether this referred to the entity that served the demand or the person who physically delivered it on behalf of that entity. The court found that the statutory demand was served on Millerview Constructions Pty Ltd by Palmer Plumbing Pty Ltd through its solicitors. The application to set aside the demand was sent to the solicitors' postal address and fax number. The court concluded that, while the application was sent within the 21-day period, it was not served on the person who served the demand as required by the statute. Instead, it was sent to the solicitors, who were not the person who served the demand. Consequently, the application to set aside the demand was not validly served.

Given this finding, the court dismissed Millerview Constructions Pty Ltd's application to set aside the statutory demand. The court held that the procedural requirements of s 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) had not been satisfied. The failure to correctly serve the application within the prescribed time and manner resulted in the application being dismissed.