Re Roberts Construction Group Pty Ltd

The applicant, Roberts Construction Group Pty Ltd, sought to set aside a statutory demand issued by the respondent, CM Luxury Pty Ltd, under sections 459G and 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The dispute arose from a contract where the respondent was engaged to undertake joinery works for a residential development. The claimed debt of $32,500 arose from shop drawings approved by the applicant, as per the contract terms. The applicant argued that there was a genuine dispute over whether the payment was a deposit and sought to set aside the demand on this basis, or alternatively, that it should be set aside for an abuse of process. The court was required to determine whether there was a genuine dispute or offsetting claim regarding the debt, or if the demand should be set aside under section 459J of the Corporations Act for being an abuse of process.

The court considered whether the payment for the shop drawings was a deposit or an outright payment, noting that the applicant had initially approved the payment claim in full, but later argued it was a deposit. The court found that there was a genuine dispute over whether the payment was a deposit, as the parties had not reached a clear agreement on this point. However, the court found no genuine dispute regarding the subsequent payment schedule issued by the applicant, which reduced the amount owed by reference to the deposit argument. The court also found that the respondent had not established a genuine offsetting claim for legal costs, and that the service of the demand was not an abuse of process. Accordingly, the court varied the demand to reflect the substantiated amount.

The court held that the statutory demand could be set aside to the extent that there was a genuine dispute over whether the payment was a deposit. The demand was varied to reflect the substantiated amount of $32,500. The court further found that the demand was not an abuse of process, and that the respondent had not established a genuine offsetting claim for legal costs. The court's final order was that the statutory demand be set aside and varied to reflect the substantiated amount, and that the respondent bear the costs of the application.