Varandra Holdings Pty Ltd v Bevan

Varandra Holdings Pty Ltd (VH) sought to set aside a statutory demand issued by Bevan. The demand related to an alleged debt of $140,000. The dispute was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. VH argued that there was a genuine dispute about the existence of the debt, which would justify setting aside the demand under section 459H of the Corporations Act 2001. The court needed to decide if the applicant's dispute was genuine and not a recent invention.

The court examined the evidence provided by Jonathan Timms, the director of VH during the time the debt arose, and Bevan. It was noted that the matter was decided on affidavit evidence, and no objections were raised against the inadmissible parts of the evidence. The court considered the chronology of events between the parties and their associated entities, noting their involvement in the finance industry and various agreements they had entered into. The court focused on whether there was a genuine dispute about the existence of the debt. The applicant's argument centred on the alleged uncertainty about the debt, which was not accepted by the court.

The court held that the applicant's uncertainty about the debt was not genuine and that there was no evidence to support a genuine dispute about the existence of the debt. The court was not satisfied that the applicant's dispute was genuine or that it was not a recent invention. Consequently, the application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed.

The court ordered that the parties submit written submissions on costs, not exceeding two pages, within 14 days.