In the matter of Australia Seiwa Pty Limited and In the matter of Seiwa Australia Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1334

In the matter of Australia Seiwa Pty Limited and In the matter of Seiwa Australia Pty Limited [2012] NSWSC 1334

The statutory demands were validly issued and signed because Mr Ralph had the actual authority of Mr Beard to do so, and as partners, s 5 of the Partnership Act 1892 (NSW) provided him with necessary authority. There was no substantial injustice or 'other reason' to set aside the demands under the Corporations Act.

Parties
Plaintiff: Australia Seiwa Pty Limited; Plaintiff: Seiwa Australia Pty Limited; First Defendant: Malcolm James Beard; Second Defendant: Gregory Charles Ralph
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Statutory Demands, Authority of Joint Creditors, Defects in Statutory Demand, Partnership Property
Corporations Law Insolvency Partnership Law Setting Aside Statutory Demands Authority of Joint Creditors Defects in Statutory Demand Partnership Property

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australia Seiwa Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Seiwa Australia Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Malcolm James Beard

First Defendant

Gregory Charles Ralph

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statutory demand is defective if signed by only one joint creditor
  2. 2 Whether statutory demand must be served by all joint creditors or with their authority
  3. 3 Whether there was 'some other reason' to set aside statutory demand under s 459J(1)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory demands were validly issued and signed because Mr Ralph had the actual authority of Mr Beard to do so, and as partners, s 5 of the Partnership Act 1892 (NSW) provided him with necessary authority. There was no substantial injustice or 'other reason' to set aside the demands under the Corporations Act.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Each of the proceedings is dismissed with costs.