NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: In the matter of Tetbury Pty Limited [2022] NSWSC 1670 Hearing dates: 25 November 2022 Date of orders: 25 November 2022 Decision date: 25 November 2022 Jurisdiction: Equity - Corporations List Before: Black J Decision: Creditor's statutory demand is set aside. Defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or as assessed. Catchwords: CORPORATIONS — Winding up — Statutory demand — Genuine dispute about existence or amount of debt — Where a law firm and its client were engaged in a dispute concerning fees charged by its legal representatives — Where a settlement was reached as to the payment of undisputed counsel fees but not as to disputed solicitor fees — Where the amount paid under the settlement was in fact applied by the law firm to its disputed fees — Where the law firm sought a determination by a costs assessor and used that determination to found a creditor's statutory demand issued to the client — Whether there is a genuine dispute about the existence or amount of debt — Whether the demand should be set aside for some other reason Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 459H(1)(a), 459J(1)(b). Cases Cited: - Arcade Badge Embroidery Co Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2005) 157 ACTR 22; [2005] ACTCA 3 - CP York Holdings Pty Ltd v The Food Improvers Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 409 - Gujarat NRE Australia Pty Limited v Gibbs [2006] NSWSC 211 - Hebbel Constructions Pty Ltd v Bitar Pty Ltd [2022] NSWSC 1594 - Ligon 158 Pty Ltd v Huber (2016) 117 ACSR 495; [2016] NSWCA 330 - Re Passion Projects Pty Ltd [2014] NSWSC 345 - Re Savemore Wholesale Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 307 - Re Tetbury Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 237 - Re Wollongong Coal Ltd (2015) 110 ACSR 134; [2015] NSWSC 1680 - Saferack Pty Ltd v Marketing Heads Australia Pty Ltd (2007) 214 FLR 393; [2007] NSWSC 1143 - Spencer Constructions Pty Ltd v G&M Aldridge Pty Ltd (1997) 76 FCR 452; [1997] FCA 681 - Tetbury Limited v Mahony Law [2021] NSWDC 691 Texts Cited: F Assaf, Winding Up in Insolvency (LexisNexis, 3rd ed, 2021) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Tetbury Pty Ltd (Plaintiff) John Francis Mahony trading as Mahony Law (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: M R Gracie (Plaintiff) A E Maroya (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