22 Sept 2016
The appeal was dismissed because material and unresolved factual disputes existed about whether the original invoices complied with the Act and whether the August 2015 communications constituted fresh payment claims; those credibility issues meant the appellant failed to show the respondent had no defence and summary judgment was inappropriate.
8 Mar 2013
The CCA applied to the contracts as prefabrication of customised components; Reinforcing's invoices, while labeled payment claims, did not comply with s20(2)(d) because they failed to specify a due date for payment and thus materially failed to meet statutory requirements; that defect meant Herbert established an arguable genuine and substantial dispute under s290(4) Companies Act 1993 and the statutory demand was set aside, subject to Herbert paying the undisputed balance of approximately $5,600 within 5 working days.
2 Apr 2009
Applicant failed to establish a reasonably arguable defence or a real prospect of successful judicial review that would compel reassessment or a $50,000 credit; statutory scheme treats assessments as correct and penalties attach when tax is unpaid under the statutory due date; alleged double assessment does not create inconsistency or invalidate the debt.