Sheslow v Diamond Rose NL [2005] NSWSC 492
The demand served by the plaintiff did not constitute a statutory demand under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) due to fundamental deficiencies of form and failure to refer to the correct statutory provision. Even if it had been a statutory demand, it had been served outside the three-month period prescribed by s.459C(2)(a), so no presumption of insolvency could arise. The application was therefore dismissed.
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Richard Myron Sheslow; Defendant: Diamond Rose NL
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 23 May 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Winding Up Application / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Winding Up Applications, Statutory Demand, Insolvency
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Richard Myron Sheslow
Plaintiff
Diamond Rose NL
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Application / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the demand served by the plaintiff constitutes a statutory demand under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
- 2 Whether failure to comply with the demand gives rise to a presumption of insolvency under s.459C(2)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Ratio Decidendi
The demand served by the plaintiff did not constitute a statutory demand under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) due to fundamental deficiencies of form and failure to refer to the correct statutory provision. Even if it had been a statutory demand, it had been served outside the three-month period prescribed by s.459C(2)(a), so no presumption of insolvency could arise. The application was therefore dismissed.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- Winding up application dismissed
- Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment