Wizcorp Pty Limited v McNeice
[2013] NSWSC 753
•14 June 2013
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Wizcorp Pty Limited v McNeice [2013] NSWSC 753 Hearing dates: 22/05/2013 Decision date: 14 June 2013 Jurisdiction: Equity Division - Corporations List Before: Young AJ Decision: Vary statutory demand; no order as to costs
Catchwords: CORPORATIONS - Debts - Statutory demand - Application to set aside statutory demand Category: Principal judgment Parties: Wizcorp Pty Limited (Plaintiff)
David McNeice (First Defendant)
Aleita R McNeice (Second Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
ET Finnane (Plaintiff)
RW Tregenza (Defendants)
Solicitors:
Senses Legal (Plaintiff)
Autore & Associates (Defendants)
File Number(s): 2012/140385
Judgment
HIS HONOUR: This is an application to set aside a statutory demand.
This company is one of a group of five against whom statutory demands were issued by the defendants on the 15 April 2012. The five applications to set aside those demands were heard together on 22 May 2013, with the evidence of one being evidence in all.
I gave reasons in the case of Touma Family Super Fund Pty Limited v McNeice (2012/140381), dealing with general matters of principle and matters which were common to each of the five companies. These reasons deal only with matters germane to Wizcorp Pty Ltd.
The statutory demand was for $10,432.67. This was made up of five separate items, namely:
(a) Invoice #1908 for $2,750.00;
(b) Invoice #2538 for $2,970.00;
(c) Invoice #4011 for $2,365.00;
(d) Administration charges of $572.00;
(e) Interest charges totalling $1,775.67
As to paragraphs (a) and (b), the plaintiff disputes the quantum of the invoices and alleges that the work was not actually done. Mr McNeice's affidavit of the 15 May 2013 gives full details of the work that was done and I can see no reason why I should not allow these sums.
As to paragraph (c), the plaintiff claims that Tarrants, rather than the defendants, completed the work. This point was dealt with in my judgment in Touma Family Super Fund Pty Limited v McNeice (2012/140381) and for the reasons therein stated, the statutory demand should be varied to exclude this item.
The plaintiffs arguments with respect to paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) were also dealt with in [37] and [41] of my judgment in Touma Family Super Fund Pty Limited v McNeice (2012/140381). For the reasons detailed in this judgment, this aspect of the statutory demand should be excluded.
The result is that I vary the statutory demands by reducing them to $5,720.00 and declare that the statutory demand had effect as so varied from 12 April 2012. I extend the time for complying by 21 days after the date of these reasons. It seems to me that in the circumstances there should be no order for costs in these proceedings.
**********
Decision last updated: 14 June 2013
0
0