JUDGE:	Hetyey AsJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 September 2020 and 9 September 2020, last submissions filed 25 September 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 December 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Re MHC Pathology Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 789

---

CORPORATIONS – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – Part 5.4 – Insolvency – Statutory demand – Application to set aside – Section 459G – Originating process served interstate – Requirements of Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth) – Whether service effective - Section 459H(1)(a) – Whether genuine dispute about existence and/or amount of debt – Section 459E(2)(e) – Failure to comply with prescribed form for statutory demands – Failure to refer to 6 month statutory period for compliance set by Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020 (Cth) – Failure to specify address for service in State in which demand served – Section 459J(1)(a) – Whether defect in demand – Whether substantial injustice caused unless set aside – Section 459J(1)(b) – Whether some other reason to set demand aside.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr O Polichtuk, solicitor	DSA Law
For the Defendant	Mr P Gleeson, solicitor	Moama Law

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1

Procedural history.............................................................................................................................. 1

Jurisdictional question – service of s 459G application............................................................. 3

Engaging the Court’s jurisdiction..................................................................................... 4
Requirements of the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth)....................... 4
Service of s 459G applications on corporate creditors................................................... 5
Finding on service and jurisdiction.................................................................................. 7

Applicable law relating to genuine dispute ground................................................................. 12

Evidence concerning genuine dispute ground........................................................................... 14

Plaintiff’s material............................................................................................................. 14
Defendant’s material......................................................................................................... 19
Consideration of genuine dispute ground..................................................................... 20

Section 459J grounds....................................................................................................................... 24

Failure to refer to extended 6-month period for compliance...................................... 25
Failure to nominate an address for service within Victoria........................................ 28

Solvency............................................................................................................................................. 30

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 31

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

The plaintiff, MHC Pathology Pty Ltd, is in the business of breeding, raising, and selling horses. The defendant, Midvale Trial Pty Ltd, is the owner of property located at 3974 Maryborough-Bendigo Road, Eddington (‘the property’). Although the details are the subject of disagreement, in late 2018 or early 2019, there was an arrangement by which a number of horses owned by the plaintiff were permitted to be kept at the defendant’s property. By a statutory demand issued on 4 June 2020, the defendant sought payment of $32,117.27 from the plaintiff in respect of agistment fees and feed said to be owing pursuant to this arrangement (‘the statutory demand’).[1]
[1] The statutory demand is found at exhibit KJS-2 to the affidavit of Kaylene Janice Sullivan affirmed 22 June 2020 and filed on 23 June 2020 (‘Sullivan affidavit affirmed 22 June 2020’). Whilst the statutory demand has been issued by ‘Midvale Trial Pty Ltd (AKA…

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 MHC Pathology Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Re MHC Pathology Pty Ltd [2020] VSC 789
Case: [2020] VSC 789
Decision Date: 1 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Re MHC Pathology Pty Ltd involved the company MHC Pathology Pty Ltd and a creditor, who served a statutory demand on the company. The dispute was brought before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, which was required to determine the validity of the statutory demand and whether it should be set aside. The central legal issues were whether the statutory demand was served in accordance with the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth), whether there was a genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt, and whether there were any defects in the statutory demand that warranted setting it aside under section 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

The court found that the statutory demand was not served in compliance with the Service and Execution of Process Act 1992 (Cth). The demand did not adhere to the prescribed form required by section 459E(2)(e) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), and it failed to refer to the six-month statutory period for compliance set by the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020 (Cth). Additionally, the demand did not specify an address for service in the state in which the demand was served. The court held that these defects constituted substantial injustice unless the demand was set aside. The company demonstrated that there was a genuine dispute about the existence and amount of the debt, which further supported the argument for setting the demand aside.

Consequently, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia ordered the statutory demand to be set aside. The court concluded that the defects in the statutory demand were not trivial and that setting it aside would prevent substantial injustice. The court's decision was grounded in the statutory requirements and the demonstrated genuine dispute regarding the debt.

Orders