STERLING v BRADLEY [1999] NSWSC 924

STERLING v BRADLEY [1999] NSWSC 924

There is a genuine dispute as to whether the amounts claimed were admitted or due; the alleged admissions are either drafts not intended as admissions or are too ambiguous and conditional to amount to a clear, immediate acknowledgment of debt. Further, even if the documents could be admissions by authority under s 87 Evidence Act, they are not sufficient to remove the genuine dispute as essential amounts and repayment terms remain unestablished. The statutory demand is therefore set aside.

Parties
Plaintiff: Sterling Estates (SA) Pty Limited; Defendant: Michael Bradley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Judgment
Outcome
Statutory demand set aside; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Admissions by Agents, Affidavit Requirements, Genuine Dispute, Joint Venture Capital Contributions
Corporations Law Evidence Statutory Demand Admissions by Agents Affidavit Requirements Genuine Dispute Joint Venture Capital Contributions

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sterling Estates (SA) Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Michael Bradley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether alleged admissions by agent constitute sufficient basis for statutory demand under s 459G of the Corporations Law
  2. 2 Whether s 87 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) alters the common law rule regarding admissibility of agent admissions not published to third parties
  3. 3 Whether the applicant’s affidavit meets jurisdictional threshold to support application to set aside statutory demand

Ratio Decidendi

There is a genuine dispute as to whether the amounts claimed were admitted or due; the alleged admissions are either drafts not intended as admissions or are too ambiguous and conditional to amount to a clear, immediate acknowledgment of debt. Further, even if the documents could be admissions by authority under s 87 Evidence Act, they are not sufficient to remove the genuine dispute as essential amounts and repayment terms remain unestablished. The statutory demand is therefore set aside.

Court Disposition

Statutory demand set aside; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • The creditors Statutory Demand for payment of debt dated 17 December 1998 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff be set aside.
  • The defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.