Re Myer & Son Family Butchery Pty Ltd

Case

[1998] QSC 2

30 January 1998


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Re Myer and Son Family Butchery Pty Ltd [1998] QSC 2 [1998] QSC 2 30 January 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of Re Myer & Son Family Butchery Pty Ltd involves an application to set aside a statutory demand for payment made by Paul Michael Tighe against Wayne Myer & Son Family Butchery Pty Ltd. The applicants seek to challenge the statutory demand issued under the Corporations Law, contending that the demand was not properly served, and thus the application to set it aside was not made within the requisite 21-day period. The court's jurisdiction to entertain the application hinges on the interpretation of sections 459G, 220(1), and 109Y of the Corporations Law.

The legal issue before the court was whether the statutory demand was served outside the ordinary time for delivery by post and if the application was made within the required 21-day period. The court examined the provisions of section 109Y(b) of the Corporations Law, which states that unless the contrary is proved, service by post is deemed to occur at the time the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of post. The applicants argued that the statutory demand was not delivered until much later than the ordinary post delivery period would suggest. However, the court found that the evidence provided by the applicants did not sufficiently demonstrate that the statutory demand was delivered outside the ordinary post delivery period. The applicants failed to discharge the burden of proving that the statutory demand was served outside the ordinary time for delivery by post.

The court held that the statutory demand was properly served on 3 December 1997, and based on the ordinary post delivery period, it would have been delivered on 4 or 5 December 1997. As the application was filed on 5 January 1998, it was well outside the 21-day period stipulated by section 459G of the Corporations Law. The court dismissed the application with costs, emphasizing the importance of proper record-keeping and the need for accurate delivery timelines when registering offices outside the actual place of business.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Corporate Law & Governance

Legal Concepts

  • Statutory Interpretation

  • Service of Documents

  • Limitation Periods

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Most Recent Citation
ZZ v The King [2024] NSWCCA 25

Cases Citing This Decision

26

Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57
Kingswell v The Queen [1985] HCA 72
Cases Cited

1

Statutory Material Cited

0