Oxley v Fieldstone - [2002] NSWSC 110

CITATION: Oxley v Fieldstone [2002] NSWSC 110

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Corporations List

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 4914/01

HEARING DATE(S): 25/02/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 1 March 2002

PARTIES :

Oxley Corporate Finance Pty Limited - Plaintiff
Fieldstone Pty Limited - Defendant

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

COUNSEL : Mr T.G.R. Parker - Plaintiff
Mr J.K. Chippindall - Defendant

SOLICITORS: Allens Arthur Robinson - Plaintiff
Marshalls - Defendant

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - winding up - statutory demand - genuine dispute - demand set aside

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

CASES CITED: Austrac Rail Pty Ltd v Hunter Premium Funding Ltd [2001] NSWSC 654
Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 785
Mibor Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1994] 2 VR 290
Re Morris Catering (Aust) Pty Ltd (1993) 11 ACSR 601
Polaroid Australia Pty Ltd v Minicomp Pty Ltd (1997) 16 ACLC 529
Spencer Construction Pty Ltd v G & M Aldridge Pty Ltd (1997) 76 FCR 452

DECISION: Statutory demand set aside.

- 8 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
CORPORATIONS LIST

BARRETT J

FRIDAY, 1 MARCH 2002

4914/01 – OXLEY CORPORATE FINANCE PTY LIMITED v FIELDSTONE PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT

1 The plaintiff, Oxley Corporate Finance Pty Limited (“Oxley”), applies under s.459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) for an order setting aside a statutory demand served on it by the defendant, Fieldstone Pty Limited (“Fieldstone”). The statutory demand is dated 17 September 2001 and was served on or shortly after that date. It claims a debt of $97,067.00 described as for “consultancy services provided by the Creditor [Fieldstone] to the Company [Oxley] at the Company’s request between 1 June 2000 and 31 August 2000”.

2 The consultancy services referred to were provided by Fieldstone through Mr Michael Brown. There are in evidence six invoices rendered by Fieldstone to Oxley for such services. One of them ($7,050.00) was paid. The other five (for $52,676.00, $14,552.50, $13,035.00, $10,203.50 and $6,600.00 – the total of $97,067.00 referred to in the statutory demand) remain unpaid.

3 Mr Brown’s services were provided by Fieldstone to Oxley in the period following termination of a joint venture which had previously existed between those companies or, perhaps more accurately, between companies in the corporate group to which they respectively belonged, the joint venture having been formed in 1993 on the basis that the activities with which it was concerned extended also to associated companies of the joint venture parties themselves. At all events, it is accepted, as I understand it, that Oxley and Fieldstone were involved in the joint venture and, more importantly, in the arrangements which attended its termination.

4 The termination was effected by a deed dated 29 May 2000 the parties to which were, on the one hand, Fieldstone and an associated company and, on the other, Oxley and an associated company. At the centre of the termination arrangements lay a transfer by the Oxley parties to the Fieldstone parties of their interest in the business…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Oxley v Fieldstone and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWSC 110
Decision Date: 1 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Oxley v Fieldstone was heard in the Federal Circuit Court, where the plaintiff sought to wind up the defendant corporation on the basis of an unpaid debt. The plaintiff, Oxley, issued a statutory demand to Fieldstone, seeking payment of an outstanding debt of $14,740. Fieldstone contested the demand, asserting that there was a genuine dispute as to the existence or amount of the debt. The court was required to determine whether Fieldstone had a genuine dispute regarding the debt claimed by Oxley.

The central issue before the court was whether Fieldstone had a genuine dispute as to the existence or amount of the debt claimed by Oxley. The court examined the evidence provided by both parties and considered whether Fieldstone had raised a reasonable dispute. Fieldstone argued that there was an outstanding debt owed by Oxley to Fieldstone, which was not the debt claimed in the statutory demand. The court noted that a genuine dispute exists if the defendant can establish a "serious question" to be answered at the trial of the proceeding, and not merely a "disputable claim". The court concluded that Fieldstone had indeed raised a genuine dispute, as there was evidence of an outstanding debt between the parties, which was not the debt claimed in the statutory demand.

The court found that Fieldstone had demonstrated a serious question to be answered at the trial, as the evidence indicated that there was an outstanding debt owed by Oxley to Fieldstone, which was not the debt claimed in the statutory demand. Consequently, the court set aside the statutory demand, as Fieldstone had established a genuine dispute regarding the existence or amount of the debt. The court's decision highlights the importance of establishing a genuine dispute when contesting a statutory demand, as it can prevent the winding up of a corporation based on an unsubstantiated claim.

Orders