Re MHC Pathology Pty Ltd

In the case of Re MHC Pathology Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought to set aside a statutory demand issued by the defendant under section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The primary issue before the court was whether the statutory demand should be set aside due to procedural errors and potential defects in the demand. The plaintiff argued that the demand was defective because it did not specify an address for service in Victoria, the state in which the demand was served. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed that the demand failed to refer to the 6-month statutory period for compliance set by the Coronavirus Economic Response Package Omnibus Act 2020 (Cth) and did not comply with the prescribed form outlined in the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth). The court considered whether these defects constituted substantial injustice or if there were other reasons to set aside the demand.

The court first examined whether the plaintiff’s application to set aside the statutory demand was properly constituted. The plaintiff had not filed evidence of how and when it had served the application, nor was there evidence of the date of receipt of the statutory demand or the current registered office of the defendant. The court called the matter for mention to allow the parties to address these jurisdictional issues. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had been effectively served, but the defendant countered that the plaintiff had not properly effected service of its application. The court permitted the plaintiff to file additional affidavits and supplementary submissions on the jurisdictional issue. The court ultimately found that the plaintiff had not properly served its application and, therefore, lacked the necessary jurisdiction to determine the matter. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application to set aside the statutory demand.