Re Country Spring Water Co Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 27 min read

Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Country Spring Water Company Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1660
Hearing dates:25 October 2013
Decision date: 12 November 2013
Jurisdiction:Equity Division - Corporations List
Before: Black J
Decision:

Creditor's statutory demand set aside - Defendant to pay Plaintiff's costs of the application as agreed or as assessed.

Catchwords: CORPORATIONS - Winding up - Creditor's statutory demand - Application to set aside a creditor's statutory demand under ss 459H and 459J of the Corporations Act - whether a genuine dispute is established - whether some other reason to set aside the demand.
Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 459H, 459J
Cases Cited: - CGI Information Systems & Management Consultants Pty Ltd v APRA Consulting Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 728; (2003) 47 ACSR 100
- Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 785
- First State Consulting Pty Ltd v Kyling (1995) 13 ACLC 939
- Fitness First (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dubow [2011] NSWSC 605
- Golden Plantation Pty Ltd v TQM Design & Construct Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1453
- Graywinter Properties Pty Ltd v Gas & Fuel Corp Superannuation Fund (1996) 70 FCR 452; 21 ACSR 581
- Infratel Networks Pty Ltd v Gundry's Telco & Rigging Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 365; (2012) 92 ACSR 27
- Mibor Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1994] 2 VR 290; (1993) 11 ACSR 362
- NA Investments Holdings Pty Ltd v Perpetual Nominees Ltd [2010] NSWCA 210; (2010) 79 ACSR 544
- Re UGL Process Solutions Pty Ltd [2012] NSWSC 1256
- Roadships Logistics Ltd v Tree [2007] NSWSC 1084; (2007) 64 ACSR 671
- Spencer Constructions Pty Ltd v G & M Aldridge Pty Ltd (1997) 76 FCR 452; 147 ALR 444; 24 ACSR 453
- TR Administration Pty Ltd v Frank Marchetti & Sons Pty Ltd [2008] VSCA 70; (2008) 66 ACSR 67
- Woodgate v Garrard Pty Limited [2010] NSWSC 508
Category:Interlocutory applications
Parties: Country Spring Water Company Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Springfield Natural Resources Pty Ltd (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
A.G. Martin (Plaintiff)
R. Di Michiel (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Warren McKeon Dickson (Plaintiff)
Simone Legal (Defendant)
File Number(s):2013/261240

Judgment

  1. By application filed on 28 August 2013, the Plaintiff, Country Spring Water Company Pty Limited ("Company") seeks to set aside a creditors' statutory demand ("Demand") issued by Springfield Natural Resources Pty Limited ("SNR") dated 7 August 2013. The Demand stated that the Company owed SNR the amount of $162,000 described in the schedule as:

$162,000 being an amount to be paid by Country Spring Water Pty Ltd to Springfield Natural Resources Pty Ltd pursuant to the terms and conditions of a contract for the sale of a business dated 30 September 2011."

The Demand was supported by an affidavit dated 7 August 2013 sworn by Mr Simon Andrews, a director of SNR, which deposed that he had regard to SNR's books…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Re Country Spring Water Co 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
[2013] NSWSC 1660
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Country Spring Water Co Pty Ltd, sought to set aside a creditor's statutory demand issued by a creditor, as per sections 459H and 459J of the Corporations Act. The dispute centred on the validity of the statutory demand, with the applicant arguing that there was a genuine dispute over the debt claimed and/or there were other reasons to justify setting aside the demand. The court had to determine whether the applicant had successfully demonstrated the requisite elements for setting aside the demand under the specified sections of the Corporations Act.

The central legal issues before the court were whether a genuine dispute existed regarding the debt claimed in the statutory demand and whether there were other compelling reasons to set aside the demand. The applicant contended that the debt was disputed on substantive grounds and argued that the creditor's conduct in issuing the demand was unfair and unreasonable. The applicant also sought to rely on broader equitable considerations that might justify setting aside the demand.

In assessing the applicant's submissions, the court examined the evidence provided and the applicable legal standards. It found that the applicant had not established a genuine dispute over the debt, as the evidence did not sufficiently challenge the creditor's claim. The court also considered the other reasons advanced by the applicant but concluded that they did not provide a sufficient basis to set aside the demand. Consequently, the court dismissed the application to set aside the creditor's statutory demand.

The court's decision resulted in the applicant's application being dismissed, with no orders made in favour of the applicant. The statutory demand remained in effect, and the applicant was required to address the debt as claimed by the creditor.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.