RENNICK & RENNICK

The parties to this matter were Rennick & Rennick, the applicants, and the respondent, whose identity is not specified in the provided text. The dispute concerned an application for an order to set aside a statutory demand. The matter was heard by Jordan J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants had established a "genuine dispute" regarding the existence of the debt claimed in the statutory demand, as contemplated by section 459H of the Corporations Act 1989 (Cth). This required the court to assess whether the applicants had raised a substantial question of fact or law that ought to be tried.

Jordan J considered the evidence presented by the applicants, which included an affidavit detailing alleged breaches of contract by the respondent. The judge applied the principles established in case law concerning the threshold for establishing a genuine dispute, noting that it is not necessary for the applicant to prove the dispute on the balance of probabilities at this stage. Rather, the court must be satisfied that there is a *real* question to be tried, not a fanciful or vexatious one. The judge found that the applicants had provided sufficient grounds to suggest a genuine dispute existed concerning the amount owed.

Consequently, Jordan J ordered that the statutory demand be set aside.