Savage v Bianchino & Associates Savage v Bianchino Don

In the Federal Circuit Court, Savage sought to set aside a statutory demand issued by Bianchino & Associates pursuant to section 459G of the Corporations Act 2001. The dispute revolved around the validity of the statutory demand, which was predicated on an alleged debt owed by Savage to Bianchino & Associates. The demand was issued for an amount of $13,360.83, including interest, and sought to compel Savage to pay this sum.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the statutory demand was validly issued and, if not, whether it should be set aside under the provisions of the Corporations Act. The court had to consider the formal requirements for issuing a statutory demand and whether these had been met, as well as any procedural irregularities that might render the demand invalid. Furthermore, the court needed to assess if the demand was made in good faith and if there were any other grounds for setting it aside under section 459G.

The court found that the statutory demand was not validly issued due to procedural errors in the process of issuing the demand. Specifically, the demand did not comply with the requirements of section 459E of the Act, which mandates that a creditor must have given the debtor a written notice of the debt and the intention to issue the demand, along with an opportunity to pay the debt within 21 days. As the demand did not include this requisite notice, the court held that it was not validly issued. Additionally, the court found that the demand was not made in good faith, as Bianchino & Associates had failed to take reasonable steps to verify the debt and ensure the accuracy of the information provided. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the statutory demand under section 459G of the Act.

The court ordered that the statutory demand issued by Bianchino & Associates against Savage be set aside. The court further directed that Bianchino & Associates pay Savage’s costs of the application, reflecting the court's finding that the demand was not made in good faith.