Tekno Autosports Pty Ltd v Jenkins

Tekno Autosports Pty Ltd brought an application to set aside a statutory demand made by the plaintiff, Mr Jenkins. The dispute centred on the existence and amount of a debt owed by Tekno Autosports to Mr Jenkins. The court was tasked with determining whether there was a genuine dispute concerning the debt's existence or amount, as required by section 459H of the relevant Act. Additionally, the court had to consider whether there were any other grounds for setting aside the statutory demand under section 459J(1)(b).

The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. Tekno Autosports relied on an affidavit from its CEO and tendered payslips as evidence. Mr Jenkins did not provide any evidence to support his claim. The court noted that the statutory demand was significantly overstated by $23,717.95, a fact acknowledged by Mr Jenkins. The court inferred that Mr Jenkins was aware of the genuine dispute and issued the demand to pressure Tekno Autosports into paying the disputed debt. This conduct was deemed a further reason to set aside the statutory demand.

Based on the evidence and the legal principles, the court found that there was a genuine dispute regarding the existence and amount of the debt. The court also found that Mr Jenkins' conduct in issuing the overstated demand warranted setting it aside. Consequently, the statutory demand was set aside, and the parties were directed to file written submissions on the issue of costs.

The court emphasised the low threshold for establishing a genuine dispute and noted that the debt in question was significantly overstated. The inference was drawn that Mr Jenkins issued the demand in bad faith, further justifying the court's decision to set it aside.