Di Francesca Holdings P/L v Hatziplis Holdings P/L [2005] NSWSC 169
There is a plausible and coherent basis for the plaintiff asserting a counter-claim capable of being quantified in excess of the Statutory Demand, satisfying both grounds under s 459H(1)(a)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001. Consequently, the Statutory Demand must be set aside.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 25 February 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Judgment
- Outcome
- Statutory Demand set aside; costs awarded to plaintiff
- Legal Topics
- ['statutory Demand' 'genuine Dispute' 'offsetting Claim' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'retail Leases' 'damages']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether there is a genuine dispute as to liability for the debt in the Statutory Demand' 'Whether there is a genuine offsetting counter-claim, set-off, or cross-demand' 'Whether the counter-claim is capable of being quantified in monetary terms']
Ratio Decidendi
There is a plausible and coherent basis for the plaintiff asserting a counter-claim capable of being quantified in excess of the Statutory Demand, satisfying both grounds under s 459H(1)(a)(b) of the Corporations Act 2001. Consequently, the Statutory Demand must be set aside.
Court Disposition
Statutory Demand set aside; costs awarded to plaintiff
Orders
- ['Statutory Demand set aside' 'Order made in terms of para 1 of section A of the Originating Process' "Defendant to pay plaintiff's costs of the application" 'Exhibits may be returned after 28 days']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment