Sterling v Bradley

The parties involved in this case were Sterling, the applicant, and Bradley, the respondent. The dispute arose from a statutory demand made by Bradley against Sterling. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Sterling sought to set aside the statutory demand, arguing that the amount claimed was not owed, despite having previously admitted owing the debt.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether an admission made by an agent, in this case Sterling's admission of the debt, could be relied upon by the respondent Bradley without needing publication to a third party. The court also needed to determine whether section 87 of the Evidence Act 1995 had altered the common law rule regarding such admissions. The court found that section 87 of the Evidence Act does indeed affect the common law rule, allowing for an admission by an agent to be valid even if not published to a third party.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the legislative intent behind section 87 and how it sought to streamline the evidentiary process. It was determined that the statutory provision aimed to provide a more flexible approach to the admissibility of admissions by agents. Consequently, the court held that the admission by Sterling was valid and could be relied upon by Bradley. The court set aside the statutory demand, recognising that the debt had been properly admitted.