Di Francesca Holdings P/L v Hatziplis Holdings P/L [2005] NSWSC 169

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.

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 to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Judgment

  1. 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']