In the matter of Invigor Group Limited [2019] NSWSC 995

In the matter of Invigor Group Limited [2019] NSWSC 995

The court held that there was no genuine dispute as to Invigor Group's liability to repay the $500,000 under the Loan Agreement. The alternative variations put forward by Invigor Group were not accepted by Raus Capital, and delivery of executed transfer forms in anticipation of completion did not satisfy the obligations envisaged by the contract. No estoppel arose because there was no promise or representation by Raus Capital, and the plaintiff's assertions were unsupported by evidence or contemporaneous documents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Corporations – Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Decision on Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['winding Up' 'statutory Demand' 'genuine Dispute' 'promissory Estoppel' 'loan and Convertible Note Agreement']
['corporations Law' 'equity'] ['winding Up' 'statutory Demand' 'genuine Dispute' 'promissory Estoppel' 'loan and Convertible Note Agreement']

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

Corporations – Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Decision on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the debt under the Loan and Convertible Note Agreement was discharged or satisfied' 'Whether plaintiff has raised a genuine dispute as to the existence of the debt under s 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)' 'Whether defendant is estopped from denying satisfaction of the debt']

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that there was no genuine dispute as to Invigor Group's liability to repay the $500,000 under the Loan Agreement. The alternative variations put forward by Invigor Group were not accepted by Raus Capital, and delivery of executed transfer forms in anticipation of completion did not satisfy the obligations envisaged by the contract. No estoppel arose because there was no promise or representation by Raus Capital, and the plaintiff's assertions were unsupported by evidence or contemporaneous documents.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['Originating Process filed on 23 April 2019 is dismissed.' "Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings." "Liberty granted to the defendant to apply, by 21 August 2019, for a variation to Order 2 to seek indemnity costs and/or a lump sum costs order, such application to be made by sending affidavit...