Passion Projects (ALLYOUNEEDISLOVE) Pty Ltd v Concept Moulding Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 415

Passion Projects (ALLYOUNEEDISLOVE) Pty Ltd v Concept Moulding Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 415

Leave to appeal was refused because neither proposed ground raised any question of general principle, no reasonably clear injustice was shown, there was no evidence of the likely financial consequences to the applicant if the statutory demand were not set aside, and the costs of the leave application and any appeal would rapidly approach and exceed the amount claimed under the statutory demand.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From Orders on an Application Under S 459 G of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) Concerning Statutory Demands / Court of Appeal Summons for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
The summons for leave to appeal is refused, with costs.
Legal Topics
['statutory Demands' 'leave to Appeal' 'genuine Dispute' 'off Setting Claim' 'proportionality of Costs']
['corporations Law' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals'] ['statutory Demands' 'leave to Appeal' 'genuine Dispute' 'off Setting Claim' 'proportionality of Costs']

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 for Leave to Appeal From Orders on an Application Under S 459 G of the Corporations Act 2001 (cth) Concerning Statutory Demands / Court of Appeal Summons for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the primary judge's decision varying and upholding the balance of a statutory demand." 'Whether the proposed grounds of appeal raised any question of general principle or reasonably clear injustice.' 'Whether reliance on a consent judgment held as security under a settlement agreement was properly available.' 'Whether representations by an officer of both companies issuing statutory demands gave rise to an off-setting claim against both companies.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because neither proposed ground raised any question of general principle, no reasonably clear injustice was shown, there was no evidence of the likely financial consequences to the applicant if the statutory demand were not set aside, and the costs of the leave application and any appeal would rapidly approach and exceed the amount claimed under the statutory demand.

Court Disposition

The summons for leave to appeal is refused, with costs.

Orders

  • ['The summons for leave to appeal is refused, with costs.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs."]