Godfrey Hirst Australia Pty Ltd v Floyd Industries Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 524

CATCHWORDS CORPORATIONS - statutory demand - Corporations Law s.459G - whether genuine dispute as to debt - whether statutory demand should be set aside. Corporations Laws s.459G Classic Ceramic Importers Pty Ltd v. Ceramica Antiga SA (1994) 12 ACLC 334 Eyota Pty Ltd v. Hanave Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACLC 669 Chadwick Industries (South Coast) Pty Ltd v. Condensing Vaporisers Pty Ltd (1994) 13 ACSR 37 Cempro Pty Ltd v. Dennis M Brown Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACLC 501 GODFREY HIRST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v FLOYD INDUSTRIES PTY LTD VG 3220 of 1995 COURT: Sundberg J. PLACE: Melbourne DATE: 24 July 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 3220 of 1995 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: GODFREY HIRST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 000 849 758) Applicant AND: FLOYD INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (ACN 006 057 549) Respondent COURT: Sundberg J DATE: 24 July 1995 PLACE: Melbourne MINUTES OF ORDER The Court orders that: 1. The purported statutory demand dated 4 April 1995 served by the respondent on the applicant be set aside. 2. The respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 3220 of 1995 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: GODFREY HIRST AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 000 849 758) Applicant AND: FLOYD INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (ACN 006 057 549) Respondent COURT: Sundberg J DATE: 24 July 1995 PLACE: Melbourne REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SUNDBERG J: This is an application under s.459G of the Corporations Law to set aside a statutory demand served on the applicant by the respondent. The matter was argued at length before me on 12 July 1995. In addition to oral submissions, each counsel submitted a 10 page Statement of Contentions. Eleven affidavits were filed: 8 by the applicant and 3 by the respondent. There was also a substantial number of exhibits. There was insufficient court time available on 12 July for me to dispose of the matter, and the affidavits were not read, though counsel highlighted a few select parts of a couple of them. I have now read the affidavits, and am satisfied that there is a genuine dispute between the parties as to the amount of the debt claimed by the respondent. The applicant's affidavits do