Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS CORPORATIONS - Statutory demand - Setting aside - Supporting affidavit - Whether condition of jurisdiction - Minimum requirements of affidavit. David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corporation (1995) 184 CLR 265 Scanhill Pty Ltd v Century 21 Australasia Pty Ltd (1993) 47 FCR 451 71 Paisley Street Footscray Pty Ltd v Vineyards Estate Pty Ltd (unreported 18 August 1995) John Holland Construction and Engineering Pty Ltd v Kilpatrick Green Pty Ltd (1994) 14 ACSR 250 The Hire Works Pty Ltd v Elexpo Pty Ltd (1995) 19 ACSR 114 Re Louisbridge Pty Ltd [1994] 2 Qd R 144 Mibor Investments Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1993) 11 ACSR 362 GRAYWINTER PROPERTIES PTY LTD (ACN 051 373 570) v GAS & FUEL CORPORATION SUPERANNUATION FUND (ACN 004 295 345) VG 3439 of 1996 COURT: Sundberg J PLACE: Melbourne DATE: 17 September 1996
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No VG 3439 of 1996 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: GRAYWINTER PROPERTIES PTY LTD (ACN 051 373 570) Applicant AND: GAS & FUEL CORPORATION SUPERANNUATION FUND (ACN 004 295 345) Respondent COURT: Sundberg J DATE: 17 September 1996 PLACE: Melbourne MINUTES OF ORDER 1. The Court declares that the application filed on 15 August 1996 and the affidavit of Garrick Lewis Gray sworn 15 August 1996 together constitute an application for the purposes of s 459G of the Corporations Law. 2. The Court orders that the applicant be at liberty to file a further affidavit or further affidavits in support of its 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 3439 of 1996 GENERAL DIVISION ) BETWEEN: GRAYWINTER PROPERTIES PTY LTD (ACN 051 373 570) Applicant AND: GAS & FUEL CORPORATION SUPERANNUATION FUND (ACN 004 295 345) Respondent COURT: Sundberg J DATE: 17 September 1996 PLACE: Melbourne REASONS FOR JUDGMENT SUNDBERG J: Application to set aside statutory demand On 26 July 1996 the respondent served on the applicant a statutory demand under s 459E of the Corporations Law. The demand asserted that the applicant owed the respondent $127,500, being the amount of a judgment debt, and required the applicant within twenty-one days to pay the amount or secure or compound for the debt to the respondent's reasonable satisfaction.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate