CGI Information Systems v APRA Consulting Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 728

CGI Information Systems v APRA Consulting Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 728

Because APRA's asserted entitlement arose, at its highest, from an alleged repudiation or breach of contract and not from a contractual obligation to pay a liquidated sum, APRA had at most an unliquidated damages claim rather than a debt. That fundamental distinction established a genuine dispute as to the existence of the alleged $12,320 debt, so the statutory demand had to be set aside. APRA persisted after the defect was pointed out, warranting indemnity costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.459 G of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) to Set Aside a Statutory Demand / Judgment on Originating Process Filed on 29 April 2003
Outcome
Statutory demand set aside; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs on the indemnity basis.
Legal Topics
['statutory Demand' 'genuine Dispute' 'debt and Unliquidated Damages' 'breach of Contract' 'indemnity Costs']
['corporations' 'insolvency' 'contract' 'costs'] ['statutory Demand' 'genuine Dispute' 'debt and Unliquidated Damages' 'breach of Contract' 'indemnity Costs']

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

Application Under S.459 G of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) to Set Aside a Statutory Demand / Judgment on Originating Process Filed on 29 April 2003

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a genuine dispute as to the existence of the alleged debt of $12,320 the subject of the statutory demand.' "Whether APRA's claim for four weeks' remuneration arising from an alleged termination or breach of contract was a debt or only an unliquidated claim for damages." "Whether APRA should pay CGI's costs on the indemnity basis for persisting with the statutory demand."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because APRA's asserted entitlement arose, at its highest, from an alleged repudiation or breach of contract and not from a contractual obligation to pay a liquidated sum, APRA had at most an unliquidated damages claim rather than a debt. That fundamental distinction established a genuine dispute as to the existence of the alleged $12,320 debt, so the statutory demand had to be set aside. APRA persisted after the defect was pointed out, warranting indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Statutory demand set aside; defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs on the indemnity basis.

Orders

  • ['The statutory demand dated 1 April 2003 and served on 9 April 2003 is set aside.' "APRA Consulting Pty Ltd is to pay CGI Information Systems and Management Consultants Pty Ltd's costs on the indemnity basis."]