Hills Motorway Ltd v UBS AGHills Motorway Management Ltd v UBS AG [2005] NSWSC 1086

Hills Motorway Ltd v UBS AGHills Motorway Management Ltd v UBS AG [2005] NSWSC 1086

The statutory demands, while claiming only half the joint debt from each plaintiff, are not invalid as each demand claims a sum owed, and such misstatement is only a defect not causing substantial injustice. The affidavits filed within 21 days did not sufficiently delineate an offsetting claim exceeding the amount demanded, and affidavits filed after 21 days cannot introduce new grounds for dispute. Therefore, the applications to set aside the statutory demand must be dismissed, but payment by either or both plaintiffs of the sum claimed will satisfy the demands against both.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Judgment
Outcome
applications dismissed
Legal Topics
['statutory Demand' 'joint Liability' 'offsetting Claim' 'breach of Contract' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['corporations' 'equity'] ['statutory Demand' 'joint Liability' 'offsetting Claim' 'breach of Contract' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

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 Statutory Demand / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether statutory demands claiming half of a joint debt from each party are valid' 'Whether grounds for setting aside the demands exist due to the terms of liability' 'Whether an offsetting claim is established' 'Whether affidavits filed after the statutory period can be relied upon']

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory demands, while claiming only half the joint debt from each plaintiff, are not invalid as each demand claims a sum owed, and such misstatement is only a defect not causing substantial injustice. The affidavits filed within 21 days did not sufficiently delineate an offsetting claim exceeding the amount demanded, and affidavits filed after 21 days cannot introduce new grounds for dispute. Therefore, the applications to set aside the statutory demand must be dismissed, but payment by either or both plaintiffs of the sum claimed will satisfy the demands against both.

Court Disposition

applications dismissed

Orders

  • ["Plaintiffs' counsel to bring in short minutes in accordance with reasons." 'Declaration that payment of $5,617,040 by either or both plaintiffs will satisfy both statutory demands.' 'Each summons dismissed.']