In the matter of TZI Australia Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 493

In the matter of TZI Australia Pty Limited [2024] NSWSC 493

The minor misstatement of the invoice date in the statutory demand did not produce substantial injustice as the invoice number and amount sufficiently identified the alleged debt. The applicant failed to establish a genuine dispute as to the existence or amount of the debt, as the invoices contained the required information and no genuine variation of the contract was proved. Claimed offsetting claims were not substantiated or supported by evidence and thus not genuine. The threshold for setting aside the statutory demand was not met under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Parties
Plaintiff: TZI Australia Pty Limited; Defendant: Black Ink Networks Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Final Judgment on Originating Process
Outcome
Originating process dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Setting Aside Statutory Demand, Defect in Demand, Genuine Dispute, Offsetting Claims
Corporations Law Statutory Demand Setting Aside Statutory Demand Defect in Demand Genuine Dispute Offsetting Claims

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TZI Australia Pty Limited

Plaintiff

Black Ink Networks Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand / Final Judgment on Originating Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a defect in the statutory demand under s 459J(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the defect causes substantial injustice
  3. 3 Whether there are genuine offsetting claims under s 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The minor misstatement of the invoice date in the statutory demand did not produce substantial injustice as the invoice number and amount sufficiently identified the alleged debt. The applicant failed to establish a genuine dispute as to the existence or amount of the debt, as the invoices contained the required information and no genuine variation of the contract was proved. Claimed offsetting claims were not substantiated or supported by evidence and thus not genuine. The threshold for setting aside the statutory demand was not met under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Originating process dismissed

Orders

  • The originating process filed 6 November 2023 is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the defendant.