NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Pressure Pro Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1635 Hearing dates: 9 November 2022 Date of orders: 9 November 2022 Decision date: 09 November 2022 Jurisdiction: Equity - Corporations List Before: Black J Decision: Amended Originating Process filed by the Plaintiff on 20 September 2022 is dismissed with costs. Catchwords: CORPORATIONS — Winding up — Statutory demand — Affidavit in support of application — Where the affidavit verifying a statutory demand was sworn by a person in a foreign country and witnessed by audio-visual means by an Australian legal practitioner physically located in Melbourne, Victoria — Whether the affidavit was validly witnessed and if not, whether the demand should be set aside. CORPORATIONS — Winding up — Statutory demand — Genuine dispute about existence or amount of debt — Setting aside on other grounds — Where there is an arbitration provision in the agreement governing the parties' relationship — Whether there was a dispute at the time the demand was served so as to engage the arbitration provision - whether the demand should be set aside. Legislation Cited: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 27(b) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 459E, 459H, 459J Electronic Transactions Act 2000 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 186 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), s 35 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 79 Oaths Act 1900 (NSW), s 26, s 27 Oaths and Affirmations Act 2018 (Vic), s 21 The Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, opened for signature 18 March 1970, 847 UNTS 231 (entered into force 7 October 1972) Cases Cited: - Arris Investments Pty Limited v Fahd [2010] NSWSC 309 - Bobolas v Waverley Council (2016) 92 NSWLR 406 - Fastlink Calling Pty Ltd v Macquarie Telecom Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 299; [2016] NSWCA 139 - Re Vivo International Corporation Pty Ltd [2013] NSWSC 1462 - Shaolin Temple Foundation (Australia) Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1232 Texts Cited: Matthew Bacon, A New Abridgment of the Law (London, 1832) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Pressure Pro Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) Corroventa Avfuktning AB (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: W R Chan (Plaintiff) M Fernandes (Defendant)
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