Legal Research
Cases
Oakland v JP Morgan

Oakland v JP Morgan

Case [2008] NSWSC 1079 17 November 2008

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Oakland v JP Morgan [2008] NSWSC 1079

HEARING DATE(S): 09/10/08

JUDGMENT DATE :
17 November 2008

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Macready AsJ at 1

DECISION: Paragraph 19

CATCHWORDS: Corporations Law. Application to set aside statutory demand under s 459G of Corporations Act. Misdescription of name of creditor in demand and affidavit verifying. No substantial injustice and no sufficient other reason under s 45GJ. Proceedings dismissed.

PARTIES: Oakland Property Holdings Pty Ltd v JP Morgan Trust Australia

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1344/08

COUNSEL: Mr R Aldridge for plaintiff
Mr S Ipp for defendant

SOLICITORS: Ma & Company for plaintiff
Henry Davis York for defendant

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MACREADY

Monday 17 November 2008

1344/08 OAKLAND PROPERTY HOLDINGS PTY LTD v JP MORGAN TRUST AUSTRALIA

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This is an application to set aside a statutory demand which was served under s 459G of the Corporations Act (2001) (Cth) by the defendant on the plaintiff.

2 The demand was dated 15 January 2008 in the amount of $5,362,622.73. The debt was an amount said to be due and payable on 31 December 2007 in accordance with a loan facility agreement made between the defendant and, inter alia, the plaintiff dated 6 February 2007.

3 The plaintiff, Oakland Proeperty Holdings Pty Ltd (“Oakland”) argued one ground on the hearing although other grounds were advanced in the affidavit evidence prior to the hearing. This was that the demand should be set aside under s 459J(1)(b) of the Corporations Act. The basis of the application was that the company described as the defendant in the proceedings had on 28 September 2007 changed its name to BNY Trust (Australia) Pty Limited. Thus, it was said, there was not in existence as at 15 January 2008 when the demand was issued a company known as J.P. Morgan Trust Australia Limited ACN 050 294 052. That was the description of the company in paragraph 1 of the creditor’s statutory demand for payment of debt.

4 The change of name was plainly known to those issuing the demand as well as those receiving it as a result of correspondence between the solicitors for the defendant and the plaintiff. This knowledge was derived from the receipt on 9 January 2008 by Oakland's solicitors and Mr. Pang, a director of Oakland, of a letter of that date sent by email from the defendants solicitors in which the subject heading of the letter stated in bold type "BNY Trust Company of Australia Limited (formerly J.P.Morgan Trust Australia Limited) (as custodian of Trafalgar Opportunity Fund no.4) advance to Oakland Property Holdings Pty Ltd”].

5 It should also be noted that after it was served with the demand Oakland made a payment on 15 February 2008 in the amount of $3,793,203.59 in partial satisfaction of the demand. The act of making a partial payment is consistent with Oakland being under no confusion as to the identity of the creditor.

6…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Oakland v JP Morgan

Details

AGLC: Oakland v JP Morgan [2008] NSWSC 1079
Case: [2008] NSWSC 1079
Decision Date: 17 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Oakland v JP Morgan, the applicant, Oakland, sought to set aside a statutory demand issued by JP Morgan. The application was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, and the court was tasked with determining whether there were grounds to set aside the statutory demand under section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The central issue in the case was whether the misdescription of the creditor's name in the statutory demand and the affidavit verifying it was sufficient to warrant setting aside the demand. Specifically, the court had to assess if there was any substantial injustice caused by the misdescription, or if there were any other sufficient reasons under section 459J of the Corporations Act to set aside the demand.

The court began by examining the requirements under section 459G, which allows a debtor to apply to set aside a statutory demand if they believe it should not have been made. Section 459J further details the criteria the court must consider, including whether the misdescription caused substantial injustice, or if there were other sufficient reasons to set the demand aside. The applicant argued that the misdescription of the creditor's name was a significant error that warranted setting aside the demand. However, the court found that the misdescription did not result in any substantial injustice to the applicant. The court reasoned that the misdescription did not prejudice the applicant's ability to respond to the demand, as the applicant was still able to identify the creditor and take appropriate action. Additionally, the court determined that there were no other sufficient reasons under section 459J to set the demand aside.

As a result, the court dismissed the application to set aside the statutory demand. The misdescription of the creditor's name did not cause substantial injustice or meet any other criteria outlined in section 459J of the Corporations Act. The court held that the statutory demand remained valid, and no grounds existed to set it aside.

Orders