24 Apr 2023
The recall application was dismissed because the validity of the payment claim was central and had been the subject of submissions and judicial consideration, there was no procedural unfairness nor new authoritative matter to justify recall under r 11.9, and the earlier judgment setting aside Orient's statutory demand therefore stands.
13 Oct 2022
Payment claim 2 complied with the statutory requirements of s20 CCA. SPI did not provide a payment schedule within the applicable time and did not pay; accordingly ss22–23 applied and the claimed amount became enforceable as a debt. A court in a statutory demand enforcement proceeding should not, in the absence of a payment schedule, re-open the substantive contractual merits or valuation of variations; accordingly there was no substantial dispute under s290(4)(a) and the statutory demand must not be set aside. Costs follow the statutory scheme and court discretion.
29 Oct 2013
The statutory demand was set aside because Stratus demonstrated a prima facie and then arguable dispute as to the validity of the payment claims and the effect of competing terminations; Affordable withdrew its opposition, and costs were awarded to Stratus on a scale 2B with a 50% uplift for steps after filing of Stratus' application (except no costs for Stratus' response to the strike out application).