Minpro Australia Pty Ltd v Rokonma (M) Sdn BHD

Minpro Australia Pty Ltd brought an application against Rokonma (M) Sdn Bhd for winding up on the basis of insolvency. The application was predicated on a statutory demand issued by Minpro under section 459E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). Rokonma sought to set aside the statutory demand, claiming that it was defective or that setting it aside would prevent substantial injustice. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the statutory demand was valid and if setting it aside would result in substantial injustice.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the statutory demand was valid and, if so, whether setting it aside would result in substantial injustice. Minpro argued that the demand was valid and that Rokonma had not demonstrated any substantial injustice. Rokonma contended that the demand was invalid due to defects and that setting it aside would not result in substantial injustice to Minpro. The court needed to examine the validity of the statutory demand and assess the potential consequences of setting it aside.

The court found that the statutory demand was valid and that Rokonma had not provided sufficient grounds to set it aside. The judge noted that Rokonma's arguments regarding the demand's validity were without merit and that there was no evidence of substantial injustice that would warrant setting aside the demand. The court emphasised that the onus was on Rokonma to demonstrate why the demand should be set aside, and this burden was not met. The application to set aside the demand was dismissed, and the court ordered Rokonma to pay costs to Minpro.