Prushka Fast Debt Recovery Pty Ltd v Jain

Prushka Fast Debt Recovery Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought to enforce a debt against Mr Jain (the respondent) by issuing a statutory demand. The respondent sought to have this statutory demand set aside. The matter came before Judge Burchardt in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had a "genuine dispute" regarding the debt claimed in the statutory demand, such that the demand should be set aside under section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). This required the court to consider the nature and substance of the respondent's alleged grounds for disputing the debt.

Judge Burchardt found that the respondent had raised substantial and arguable grounds for disputing the debt, which were not merely vexatious or frivolous. The court noted that the respondent had provided evidence suggesting that the debt had been paid and that there were issues with the goods and services for which the debt was claimed. These grounds, if proven, would demonstrate that the applicant did not have a debt that was undisputed or for which it had a judgment. The court applied the principles established in cases concerning the setting aside of statutory demands, which require a genuine dispute to be shown on the evidence.

The court ordered that the statutory demand be set aside and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs.