Quitstar Pty Ltd v Cooline Pacific Pty Ltd - [2002] NSWSC 402

Reported Decision:
41 ACSR 491
(2002) 20 ACLC 1695

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Quitstar v Cooline [2002] NSWSC 402

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 1886/02

HEARING DATE(S): 06/05/02

JUDGMENT DATE: 10 May 2002

PARTIES :

Quitstar Pty Limited - Appellant
Cooline Pacific Pty Limited - Respondent

JUDGMENT OF: Barrett J

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Supreme Court (Master)

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : 1886/02

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Master Macready

COUNSEL : Mr D. Knaggs, Solicitor - Appellant
Mr B.J. Burke - Respondent

SOLICITORS: Douglas Knaggs - Appellant
MacPherson & Kelly - Respondent

CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS - winding up - statutory demand - whether specification of creditor's address as post office box is a defect - whether demand in prescribed form but referring to "Corporations Law" instead of "Corporations Act 2001" is a "statutory demand" - whether misdescription of legislation is a defect

LEGISLATION CITED: Acts Interpretation Act 1901
Corporations Law 2001

CASES CITED: Kalamunda Meat Wholesalers Pty Ltd v Reg Russell & Sons Pty Ltd (1994) 13 ACSR 525
Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority (1997) 80 FCR 262
Spencer Constructions Pty Ltd v G & M Aldridge Pty Ltd (1997) 76 FCR 452
Topfelt Pty Ltd v State Bank of New South Wales Ltd (1993) 47 FCR 226
Vicbar Pty Ltd v Development Constructions (Newcastle) Pty Ltd (1995) 13 ACLC 1220

DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs

- 3 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BARRETT J

FRIDAY, 10 MAY 2002

1886/02 – QUITSTAR PTY LIMITED v COOLINE PACIFIC PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT

Background

1 The appellant appeals from a decision of Master Macready ([2002] NSWSC 342) refusing relief by declaration, as well as by order under s.459J of the Corporations Act 2001, in respect of a document dated 19 February 2002 served by the respondent on the appellant which the respondent claims to be a statutory demand in respect of a debt of $17,140.

2 The appellant maintains on appeal two of the objections asserted before the Master, saying that the decision reached by him on both aspects was in error. The first objection is that, if the document was a statutory demand, it did not comply with the requirement as to specification of an address for service upon the creditor and, for that reason, should be set aside. The second objection is more fundamental, namely, that, because the document refers throughout to the Corporations Law rather than the Corporations Act 2001, it is not in truth a statutory demand at all; or, if it is, should be set aside because the references to the former legislation amount to a defect. The Master granted to the appellant leave to amend to include a claim for a declaration that the document was not a statutory demand so that the second part of the appellant’s case could be appropriately advanced.

The first objection – reference to post office box only

3 The first objection stems from the form of paragraph 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Quitstar Pty Ltd v Cooline Pacific Pty Ltd 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 402
Decision Date: 10 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Quitstar Pty Ltd v Cooline Pacific Pty Ltd, the dispute involved a statutory demand issued by Quitstar against Cooline Pacific, which was seeking winding up of Cooline Pacific. The High Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether certain defects in the statutory demand rendered it invalid. Specifically, the demand specified a post office box as the creditor's address, and referred to the "Corporations Law" rather than the "Corporations Act 2001". The primary legal issue before the court was whether these defects invalidated the statutory demand.

The court examined the requirements for a statutory demand under the Corporations Act 2001, focusing on the necessity of the demand being in prescribed form. It found that a post office box could serve as a valid address for the purpose of a statutory demand, provided it was capable of receiving mail. The court also held that the reference to the "Corporations Law" instead of the "Corporations Act 2001" did not constitute a defect that rendered the demand invalid, as the intent behind the statutory demand was clear and the misdescription did not cause any prejudice to the respondent.

The High Court concluded that the statutory demand, despite the minor defects, was in the prescribed form and was valid. Therefore, the defects did not render the demand invalid. The statutory demand was found to be properly issued and served, and the court ruled in favour of Quitstar, upholding the validity of the statutory demand against Cooline Pacific. The court's decision provided clarity on the requirements for a statutory demand and the consequences of minor defects in the prescribed form.

Orders