Canon Australia Pty Ltd v Yong Bros Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 842

Canon Australia Pty Ltd v Yong Bros Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 842

Although the statutory demand was defective because it did not adequately describe how the claimed sum of $67,715.86 was comprised, the defect did not cause substantial injustice within s 459J(1)(a). Canon did not show that the unexplained GST component or other defects had caused it to fail to raise a relevant...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Application Concerning Creditor's Statutory Demand Under the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Interlocutory Process Seeking Separate Determination of Questions Under S 459 J(1)(a) and S 459 J(1)(b)
Outcome
Interlocutory process dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
["creditor's Statutory Demand" 'defect in Statutory Demand' 'substantial Injustice' 'genuine Dispute' 'offsetting Claims' 'separate Determination of Questions']
['corporations Law' 'insolvency'] ["creditor's Statutory Demand" 'defect in Statutory Demand' 'substantial Injustice' 'genuine Dispute' 'offsetting Claims' 'separate Determination of Questions']

Source-derived case record

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

Application Concerning Creditor's Statutory Demand Under the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) / Interlocutory Process Seeking Separate Determination of Questions Under S 459 J(1)(a) and S 459 J(1)(b)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether questions under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459J(1)(a) and s 459J(1)(b) should be determined separately.' 'Whether the statutory demand was defective because it failed adequately to identify or particularise the debt claimed.' 'Whether any defect in the statutory demand would cause substantial injustice if the demand were not set aside.' 'Whether there was some other reason to set aside the statutory demand under s 459J(1)(b).']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the statutory demand was defective because it did not adequately describe how the claimed sum of $67,715.86 was comprised, the defect did not cause substantial injustice within s 459J(1)(a). Canon did not show that the unexplained GST component or other defects had caused it to fail to raise a relevant ground or otherwise substantially prejudiced it, and the genuine dispute as to part of the debt could be addressed under s 459H. There was also no other reason under s 459J(1)(b), including no relevant change of position induced by representations and no abuse of process. Because the separate questions would not determine the proceedings in Canon's favour, separate determination...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory process dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory process is dismissed with costs.']