David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [1995] HCA 43

David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation [1995] HCA 43

Section 459G(2) and (3) impose essential jurisdictional conditions requiring an application to set aside a statutory demand, and the supporting affidavit and service requirements, to be completed within 21 days after service of the demand. The general power in s 1322(4) to extend time does not supplement or qualify that specific later provision, particularly in light of the scheme of Pt 5.4, the express extension powers elsewhere in that Part, and the operation of ss 459C and 459F. Because the appellants filed and served their s 459G applications after the 21 day period, there was no valid Pt 5.4 application to set aside the demands.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria (appeal Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['statutory Demands' 'winding Up in Insolvency' 'extension of Time' 'construction of Corporations Law']
['corporations Law' 'insolvency Law'] ['statutory Demands' 'winding Up in Insolvency' 'extension of Time' 'construction of Corporations Law']

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

Appeal / High Court Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria (appeal Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 1322(4) of the Corporations Law empowers a court to extend the time within which a company can file an application under s 459G to set aside a statutory demand.' 'Whether applications filed and served after the 21 day period in s 459G were valid applications under Pt 5.4 of the Corporations Law.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 459G(2) and (3) impose essential jurisdictional conditions requiring an application to set aside a statutory demand, and the supporting affidavit and service requirements, to be completed within 21 days after service of the demand. The general power in s 1322(4) to extend time does not supplement or qualify that specific later provision, particularly in light of the scheme of Pt 5.4, the express extension powers elsewhere in that Part, and the operation of ss 459C and 459F. Because the appellants filed and served their s 459G applications after the 21 day period, there was no valid Pt 5.4 application to set aside the demands.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs']