MD Lawyers Pty Ltd v Stephen Wayne Velik [2009] NSWSC 879

MD Lawyers Pty Ltd v Stephen Wayne Velik [2009] NSWSC 879

The plaintiff established genuine disputes concerning the rental/licence fee and repainting claims. The only substantiated amount was $167.46 for media advertising costs, which was below the $2,000 statutory minimum, so s 459H(3) required the statutory demand to be set aside.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside a Statutory Demand / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Statutory demand set aside; defendants to pay plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['statutory Demand' 'genuine Dispute' 'substantiated Amount Below Statutory Minimum' 'corporations Act 2001 (cth) S 459 H']
['corporations Law'] ['statutory Demand' 'genuine Dispute' 'substantiated Amount Below Statutory Minimum' 'corporations Act 2001 (cth) S 459 H']

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 a Statutory Demand / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a genuine dispute about amounts claimed in the statutory demand for rental or licence fees.' 'Whether there was a genuine dispute about the claimed repainting costs.' 'Whether the substantiated amount of the statutory demand was less than the statutory minimum requiring the demand to be set aside.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff established genuine disputes concerning the rental/licence fee and repainting claims. The only substantiated amount was $167.46 for media advertising costs, which was below the $2,000 statutory minimum, so s 459H(3) required the statutory demand to be set aside.

Court Disposition

Statutory demand set aside; defendants to pay plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['The statutory demand for the payment of debts served by the defendants dated 10 June 2009 is set aside.' "The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings."]