Aust Yieh Stainless Pty Limited v Horans Steel Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 244

Aust Yieh Stainless Pty Limited v Horans Steel Pty Limited [2000] NSWSC 244

Because general solvency is not a ground on which a statutory demand may be set aside, the Defendant could not have relied on general solvency in an application to set aside the statutory demand and therefore was not barred by s459S from raising general solvency at the hearing of the winding up application. Since it was common ground that the Defendant would remain solvent even if the statutory demand were paid in full, the Registrar's decision declining to wind up the Defendant was correct.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Corporations Winding Up Application / Notice of Motion Seeking Substitution of Contrary Orders to Registrar's Order Declining to Wind Up the Defendant
Outcome
Plaintiff's Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['statutory Demand' 'winding Up' 'solvency' 'corporations Law S459 S' 'leave to Oppose Winding Up Application']
['corporations' 'insolvency'] ['statutory Demand' 'winding Up' 'solvency' 'corporations Law S459 S' 'leave to Oppose Winding Up Application']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Corporations Winding Up Application / Notice of Motion Seeking Substitution of Contrary Orders to Registrar's Order Declining to Wind Up the Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a defendant company that failed to apply to set aside a statutory demand required leave under s459S(1) of the Corporations Law before opposing a winding up application on the basis of general solvency.' 'Whether general solvency is a ground on which a statutory demand may be set aside.' "Whether the Registrar's order declining to wind up the Defendant should be disturbed."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because general solvency is not a ground on which a statutory demand may be set aside, the Defendant could not have relied on general solvency in an application to set aside the statutory demand and therefore was not barred by s459S from raising general solvency at the hearing of the winding up application. Since it was common ground that the Defendant would remain solvent even if the statutory demand were paid in full, the Registrar's decision declining to wind up the Defendant was correct.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's Motion dismissed with costs."]