Sturdy Components Pty Limited v Burositzmobelfabrik Freidrich W Dauphin Gmbh & Co [1999] NSWSC 595

Sturdy Components Pty Limited v Burositzmobelfabrik Freidrich W Dauphin Gmbh & Co [1999] NSWSC 595

The plaintiff was not a party to the joint venture agreements and obtained no rights under them, so those agreements did not make the invoiced debt not due and payable and did not give the plaintiff an offsetting claim. The parties contemplated that payment for the goods would be made in German Deutschmarks, the Deutschmark amount was clearly and expressly stated in the statutory demand, and the Australian dollar conversion was included to satisfy the Corporations Law form requirement. The demand therefore did not contain a relevant defect and there was no genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt. The summons was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside a Creditor's Statutory Demand Under Section 459 G of the Corporations Law / Hearing and Determination of Summons
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
["creditor's Statutory Demand" 'genuine Dispute' 'foreign Currency Debt' 'offsetting Claim' 'prescribed Form of Statutory Demand']
['corporations Law' 'insolvency'] ["creditor's Statutory Demand" 'genuine Dispute' 'foreign Currency Debt' 'offsetting Claim' 'prescribed Form of Statutory Demand']

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 Creditor's Statutory Demand Under Section 459 G of the Corporations Law / Hearing and Determination of Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the statutory demand should be set aside because there was a genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt.' 'Whether a debt payable in German Deutschmarks was a debt due and payable capable of supporting a statutory demand under the Corporations Law.' 'Whether the alleged debt was governed by a joint venture agreement to which the plaintiff was not a party.' 'Whether the plaintiff had an offsetting claim under the joint venture agreement equal to or greater than the amount demanded.' 'Whether stating the Deutschmark amount and its Australian dollar equivalent caused a defect in the statutory demand or uncertainty as to the amount required to be paid.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff was not a party to the joint venture agreements and obtained no rights under them, so those agreements did not make the invoiced debt not due and payable and did not give the plaintiff an offsetting claim. The parties contemplated that payment for the goods would be made in German Deutschmarks, the Deutschmark amount was clearly and expressly stated in the statutory demand, and the Australian dollar conversion was included to satisfy the Corporations Law form requirement. The demand therefore did not contain a relevant defect and there was no genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt. The summons was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The summons be dismissed.' 'The plaintiff pay the costs of the defendant.' 'The exhibits may be returned together with the authorities provided.']