JUDGE:	Efthim AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 September 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 September 2025
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re Greenpoint IT Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSC 606

---

CORPORATIONS – Winding up – Statutory demand based on default judgment – Default judgment was set aside – Application to wind up the defendant in insolvency – The defendant seeks leave under s 459S of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to oppose the application to wind up the company – In exercising the Court's discretion under s 467(1) the application is adjourned for 14 days for the debt to the paid to the Court – Winding up will be ordered if the defendant does not pay the debt to the Court in 14 days – Ace Contractors and Staff Pty Ltd v Westgarth Development Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 728, Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties vPaliflex Pty Ltd (1999) 47 NSWLR 382, [1999] NSWSC 15; Re Brooklyn Park & Co Pty Ltd [2024] VSC 611 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr S Buchanan	Michael Sandor & Associates
For the Defendant	Ms A Kinda	Mercantile Legal Pty Ltd

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background
Solvency
Section 459S of the Act
Discretion

HIS HONOUR:

The plaintiff, Synnex Australia Pty Ltd applies pursuant to s 459P of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘the Act’) to wind up the defendant, Greenpoint IT Pty Ltd.

Background

The plaintiff served a statutory demand dated 10 February 2025 on the defendant. The demand claimed that the defendant owed the plaintiff $13,124.35 in respect of a default judgment obtained in the Magistrates’ Court on 29 January 2025.
The defendant did not comply with the demand. The defendant’s director, Asish Narayan, asserts that he did not receive the statutory demand but the defendant accepts that it was validly served. The defendant is therefore presumed to be insolvent pursuant to s 459C of the Act.
On 4 May 2025, an application to set aside the default judgment was filed on behalf of the defendant in the Magistrates’ Court and on 11 June 2025, the default judgment was set aside and the defendant was ordered to pay $945.00 to the plaintiff for its costs.

Solvency

The defendant is presumed to be insolvent because it has failed to comply with the statutory demand. Section 459C of the Act provides:
Presumptions to be made in certain proceedings
(1) This section has effect for the purposes of:
(a) an application under section 234, 459P, 462 or 464; or
(b)an application for leave to make an application under section 459P.
(2)The Court must presume that the company is insolvent if, during or after the 3…

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.

Continue reading Re Greenpoint It Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re Greenpoint It Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 606
Case: [2025] VSC 606
Decision Date: 24 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ace Contractors and Staff Pty Ltd commenced proceedings against Greenpoint It Pty Ltd, seeking to wind up the defendant company in insolvency. The claim was based on a statutory demand issued to Greenpoint, which was subsequently defaulted. Greenpoint did not contest the default judgment, leading to Ace Contractors being granted a statutory demand. Greenpoint, however, later sought to set aside the default judgment, which was successful. This case involved a dispute over whether the Court should grant an order for winding up the company despite the default judgment being set aside. The primary issue before the Court was whether, in the exercise of its discretion, it should adjourn the winding up application to allow Greenpoint to pay the debt to the Court, thus avoiding winding up. The Court also had to consider the appropriate duration of any adjournment.

In determining the matter, the Court referred to previous cases such as Ace Contractors and Staff Pty Ltd v Westgarth Development Pty Ltd and Chief Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Paliflex Pty Ltd, which provided guidance on the exercise of discretion in similar circumstances. The Court noted that it was not bound by strict rules but had to consider the overall fairness and justice of the situation. In this case, the Court determined that it was appropriate to adjourn the application for 14 days to allow Greenpoint to pay the debt to the Court. This approach balanced the need to protect the rights of the creditor while also providing the debtor with an opportunity to avoid the severe consequences of winding up. If Greenpoint failed to pay the debt within the specified period, the Court would proceed with the winding up order.

The Court's decision was informed by the need to ensure that the statutory process was not abused and that both parties' interests were fairly considered. The Court found that an adjournment of 14 days was a reasonable period for Greenpoint to secure the funds necessary to pay the debt. This decision provided a practical solution that allowed for the resolution of the dispute without undue hardship on either party. The Court's final order was that the application would be adjourned for 14 days, and winding up would proceed if the debt was not paid within that timeframe.

Orders