[1] Get'm Pty Ltd v Triulcio & Anor - [2] Chase Property Investments Pty Ltd v Triulcio & Anor - [3] Chase (No 1) Property Investments Pty Ltd v Triulcio & Anor [2004] NSWSC 291

[1] Get'm Pty Ltd v Triulcio & Anor - [2] Chase Property Investments Pty Ltd v Triulcio & Anor - [3] Chase (No 1) Property Investments Pty Ltd v Triulcio & Anor [2004] NSWSC 291

There was no genuine dispute as to the Get'm Pty Ltd debt; therefore, the statutory demand against it should not be set aside. As to the Chase companies, there was a barely arguable but sufficient genuine dispute as to the continued existence of the debts the subject of the statutory demands. Therefore, the demands against Chase Property Investments Pty Ltd and Chase (No 1) Property Investments Pty Ltd should be set aside, without conditions, as the dispute goes to whether the debt exists at all rather than involving a nebulous offsetting claim.

Parties
Plaintiff: Get'm Pty Ltd; Plaintiff: Chase Property Investments Pty Ltd; Plaintiff: Chase (No 1) Property Investments Pty Ltd; First Defendant: Domenico Triulcio; Second Defendant: Domenica Triulcio
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Judgment Following Hearing of Applications
Outcome
Statutory demands set aside in two of three applications; costs orders as specified.
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Genuine Dispute, Setting Aside Statutory Demand, Corporations Act S.459 G, Corporations Act S.459 M
Corporations Law Statutory Demand Genuine Dispute Setting Aside Statutory Demand Corporations Act S.459 G Corporations Act S.459 M

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Get'm Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Chase Property Investments Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Chase (No 1) Property Investments Pty Ltd

Plaintiff

Domenico Triulcio

First Defendant

Domenica Triulcio

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Judgment Following Hearing of Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a genuine dispute as to the existence of the debts the subject of statutory demands
  2. 2 Whether conditions should be imposed under s.459M of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) when setting aside statutory demands

Ratio Decidendi

There was no genuine dispute as to the Get'm Pty Ltd debt; therefore, the statutory demand against it should not be set aside. As to the Chase companies, there was a barely arguable but sufficient genuine dispute as to the continued existence of the debts the subject of the statutory demands. Therefore, the demands against Chase Property Investments Pty Ltd and Chase (No 1) Property Investments Pty Ltd should be set aside, without conditions, as the dispute goes to whether the debt exists at all rather than involving a nebulous offsetting claim.

Court Disposition

Statutory demands set aside in two of three applications; costs orders as specified.

Orders

  • Originating Process by Get'm Pty Ltd (5968/03) dismissed with costs.
  • Statutory demands in matters 5969/03 and 5985/03 (Chase Property Investments Pty Ltd and Chase (No 1) Property Investments Pty Ltd) set aside; defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs.