WA Glass Pty Ltd v Auto Control Systems Pty Ltd

WA Glass Pty Ltd appeals against the orders of Master Sanderson, dismissing its application to set aside a statutory demand issued by Auto Control Systems Pty Ltd. The master's orders had the effect of extending the time for compliance with the statutory demand to 8 September 2021. WA Glass applied for an extension of time to comply with the statutory demand pending the final determination of this appeal. WA Glass contends that the master erred in accepting that the applicable principle is enunciated in Re Tesrol Holdings Pty Ltd and Reschke Pty Ltd v DiGiorgio Family Wines Pty Ltd, as those cases merely establish an exception to the rule that an unanswered request for information genuinely required to determine whether an amount claimed is payable gives rise to a genuine dispute. WA Glass further contends that the master erred in finding that there was no evidence to establish a genuine dispute that arose as a result of an unanswered request for information genuinely required to determine whether an amount claimed is payable. In addition, WA Glass submits that the master erred in finding that there was no offsetting claim and in not holding that the amount of the genuine dispute and the offsetting claim exceeded the amount claimed in the statutory demand, so that the statutory demand was required to be set aside or alternatively varied. The court was satisfied that the appeal was arguable in the relevant sense, and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an extension of time in which to comply with the statutory demand. The court made an order extending the time for WA Glass to comply with the statutory demand to 7 days after the final determination of this appeal or other earlier order, subject to WA Glass paying the sum of $248,391.91 into court as security for compliance with the statutory demand if the appeal is dismissed.