FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CORPORATIONS LAW – statutory demand – application to set aside – whether a genuine dispute about existence or amount of the debt to which the demand related.
Corporations Law s 459G
TRYCALA PTY LTD v NATURE’S REALM (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
VG 3184 of 1998
KENNY J
MELBOURNE
9 NOVEMBER 1998
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 3184 of 1998
BETWEEN:
TRYCALA PTY LTD
ApplicantAND:
NATURE'S REALM (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
RespondentJUDGE:
KENNY J
DATE OF ORDER:
9 NOVEMBER 1998
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The statutory demand dated 6 May 1998 be set aside.
The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 3184 of 1998
BETWEEN:
TRYCALA PTY LTD
ApplicantAND:
NATURE'S REALM (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE:
KENNY J
DATE:
9 NOVEMBER 1998
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application made pursuant to s 459G of the Corporations Law for an order setting aside a statutory demand dated 6 May 1998 served on the applicant by the respondent. The application was supported by affidavits sworn 28 May 1998 and 5 November 1998 by Nicholas Kritsonis, a director of the applicant. There was also an affidavit in opposition sworn on 28 October 1998 by Philip Reed, marketing director of the respondent.
Although the respondent by its counsel formally opposed the application, it did not submit that there was no genuine dispute between the applicant and the respondent about the existence or amount of the debt to which the demand related.
Having read the affidavits to which I have referred, I am satisfied that there is a genuine dispute between the applicant and respondent about the existence or amount of the debt to which the demand relates.
Accordingly I order that the statutory demand dated 6 May 1998 served on the applicant by the respondent be set aside.
I order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application.
I certify that this and the preceding one (1) page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kenny
Associate:
Dated: 9 November 1998
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr C R Northrop Solicitor for the Applicant: Bazzani Brand Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R L Moore Solicitor for the Respondent: Mills Oakley Date of Hearing: 9 November 1998 Date of Judgment: 9 November 1998
- AGLC
- Trycala Pty Ltd v Nature's Realm (Australia) Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1787
- Case
- [1998] FCA 1787
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the statutory demand met the requirements set out in the Corporations Act. Specifically, the court had to examine if the demand was made in good faith and whether there was a genuine dispute over the debt claimed. The applicant, Trycala, argued that the demand was not made in good faith and that there was no valid debt upon which the demand could be based.
The court considered the evidence and submissions from both parties. It concluded that Nature's Realm had not acted in good faith when issuing the statutory demand, and that the demand was not based on a valid debt. Consequently, the court found that the statutory demand was invalid and ordered that it be set aside. Additionally, the court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that statutory demands are made in good faith and are supported by a valid debt.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The statutory demand dated 6 May 1998 be set aside.
2.
The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the application.
Note:
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.