NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Dventures Pty Ltd v Wily [2001] NSWSC 641 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 5045/00 HEARING DATE(S) : 19 July 2001 JUDGMENT DATE : 27 July 2001
PARTIES : Dventures Pty Limited (Plaintiff) Andrew Hugh Jenner Wily - In his capacity as Deed Administrator of Brac Retail Pty Limited (Defendant) JUDGMENT OF : Master McLaughlin
COUNSEL : J. K. Chippindall (Plaintiff) P.T. Russell (Defendant) SOLICITORS : M.D. Nikolaidis & Co. (Plaintiff) Jones King Lawyers (Defendant) CATCHWORDS : Corporations - Statutory Demand - Application to set aside - Whether there is a debt - Status of Defendant to serve demand - Whether Defendant is a creditor - Whether demand is defective - Authority of partner of Defendant to sign demand - Matter of evidence - Affidavit accompanying demand - Whether affidavit complies with the rules - Requirement that affidavit verifies that the debt is due and payable - Debt asserted to arise upon a dishonoured cheque - Whether there was valuable consideration for the cheque - Antecedent debt - Relationship between receipt of cheque and antecedent debt - Bearer cheque - Status of Defendant as bearer of cheque - Status of Defendant as holder of cheque - Whether there is a genuine dispute as to the existence of the debt - Whether demand should be set aside for "some other reason". Partnership Act 1892 (NSW) LEGISLATION CITED : Cheques Act 1986 (Cth) Bills of Exchange Act 1882 (United Kingdom) Azed Developments Pty Limited v Frederick & Co. Limited (1994) 14 ACSR 54 Daewoo Australia Pty Limited v Suncorp-Metway Limited (2000) 33 ACSR 481 DCT (Vic) v Players Entertainment Network Pty Limited (1988) 13 ACLR 541 Dennis Hanger Pty Limited v Kanambra Pty Limited (1992) 6 ACSR 687 CASES CITED : Kezarne Pty Limited v Sydney Asbestos Removal Services Pty Limited (1998) 29 ACSR 11 Oliver v Davis [1949] 2 KB Portrait Express (Sales) Pty Limited v Kodak (Australasia) Pty Limited (1996) 20 ACSR 746 Rothwells Limited v Nommack (No. 100) Pty Limited (1998) 13 ACLR 421 Spencer Constructions Pty Limited v G & M Aldridge Pty Limited (1997) 76 FCR 452 Walsh v Hoag-Bosch Limited [1977] VR 178 DECISION : See paragraph 90
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