Quitstar v Cooline [2002] NSWSC 402

Quitstar v Cooline [2002] NSWSC 402

The post office box address and the use of the words Corporations Law instead of Corporations Act 2001 were defects or irregularities, but neither caused substantial injustice because service of the s.459G application and affidavit was effected within time and the demand was clearly a statutory demand under the transitional provisions and in context. The demand therefore should not be set aside, and the appeal failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Statutory Demand and Relief Under S.459 J of the Corporations Act 2001 / Appeal From Decision of Master Macready Refusing Declaration and Order Setting Aside Statutory Demand
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['statutory Demand' 'winding Up' 'defect in Statutory Demand' 'address for Service' 'transition From Corporations Law to Corporations Act 2001' 'substantial Injustice']
['corporations' 'insolvency'] ['statutory Demand' 'winding Up' 'defect in Statutory Demand' 'address for Service' 'transition From Corporations Law to Corporations Act 2001' 'substantial Injustice']

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

Appeal Concerning Statutory Demand and Relief Under S.459 J of the Corporations Act 2001 / Appeal From Decision of Master Macready Refusing Declaration and Order Setting Aside Statutory Demand

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether specifying the creditor's address for service as a post office box was a defect requiring the statutory demand to be set aside." 'Whether a document referring to the Corporations Law rather than the Corporations Act 2001 was a statutory demand within s.9 of the Corporations Act 2001.' 'Whether references to superseded legislation constituted a defect causing substantial injustice under s.459J.']

Ratio Decidendi

The post office box address and the use of the words Corporations Law instead of Corporations Act 2001 were defects or irregularities, but neither caused substantial injustice because service of the s.459G application and affidavit was effected within time and the demand was clearly a statutory demand under the transitional provisions and in context. The demand therefore should not be set aside, and the appeal failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed with costs.' 'Order 2 of the orders made on 29 April 2002, as varied on 6 May 2002, was replaced by: "The time for compliance with the statutory demand dated 19 February 2002 is extended to 17 May 2002."']