Prime Property Pty Ltd v Nerri Pty Ltd

The matter before the Court involved a statutory demand issued by Nerri Pty Ltd to Prime Property Pty Ltd. The applicant sought to have the statutory demand set aside on the basis that it did not comply with the statutory requirements. The case raised issues concerning the compliance of the demand with the prescribed form and its enforceability under the Corporations Act 2001. The legal issues before the Court included whether the statutory demand substantially complied with the essential requirements of section 459E of the Corporations Act 2001 and Form 509H under the Corporations Regulations 2001. Additionally, the Court had to determine whether the demand was effective and whether it should be set aside.

The Court found that the statutory demand did not substantially comply with the prescribed form. The demand was issued on the letterhead of the respondent and took the form of a letter, rather than the prescribed Form 509H. Furthermore, the source of any obligation to pay subsequent interest was not identified, and the respondent had set out conditions for "granting leave or setting aside" the demand within the demand itself. The Court concluded that these factors constituted substantial departures from the prescribed form. Consequently, the demand was deemed ineffective, and the application to set aside the demand was dismissed.

The Court ordered that the statutory demand served by Nerri Pty Ltd on Prime Property Pty Ltd on 15 December 2010 did not substantially comply with the essential requirements of section 459E of the Corporations Act 2001 and Form 509H under the Corporations Regulations. The non-compliance with the prescribed form was insufficient to support an application to wind up the applicant. The application to set aside the demand was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.