22 Feb 2022
The statutory demand was never validly served because delivery of the demand to the creditor's solicitors (and subsequent email transmission) did not satisfy the Companies Act methods of service (ss 388, 387 and 392); as a result the demand was a nullity and the application to set it aside could not proceed, so the proceeding is dismissed.
8 Sept 2017
The statutory demand was set aside because Portable Buildings produced affidavit material that made the dispute over the $40,000 debt genuinely arguable (stock valuation and restraint of trade allegations) and the factual conflicts could not properly be resolved on affidavits; accordingly s 290(4)(a) is satisfied and the demand must be set aside.
22 Mar 2016
The court found that although Markov had authority to issue the statutory demand at the time of issuance, subsequent revocation by the sole director and the explicit expiry of the power of attorney on 7 November 2015 meant Markov lacked authority to oppose the application; the power was not irrevocable because it was not coupled with an interest, therefore steps taken purportedly on behalf of Alcarin to oppose are treated as not filed, and on the uncontested evidence the statutory demand was to be set aside.