Ketrim v Jaeger [2002] NSWSC 474

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Ketrim v Jaeger [2002] NSWSC 474 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Equity Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 5880/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 17/05/02 JUDGMENT DATE : 14 June 2002

PARTIES : Ketrim Pty Ltd v Jaeger Corporation Pty Ltd JUDGMENT OF : Master Macready at 1

COUNSEL : Mr M.J. Cohen for plaintiff Mr P. Newton for defendant SOLICITORS : Watson Mangioni for plaintiff Kemp Strang Lawyers for defendant CATCHWORDS : Corporations Law. Application to set aside statutory demand under s 459G of the Corporations Act. No genuine dispute. Consideration of whether the court should determine a short point of construction., DECISION : Paragraph 22

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

Master Macready

Friday 14 June 2002

5880/01 Ketrim Pty Ltd v Jaeger Corporation Pty Ltd JUDGMENT 1 MASTER: This is an application to set aside a statutory demand under section 459G of the Corporations Act. The demand dated 14 November 2001 was served by the defendant on the plaintiff and claimed the sum of $100,000. The description of the debt in the schedule to the demand was as follows: -- "Part of the sum payable by the company to the creditor pursuant to an agreement made on or about 30 October 2000 between the company in the creditor, as varied by deed of variation made on 29 March 2001" 2 The plaintiff is a special-purpose entity incorporated for the purpose of property development. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Stuart Pty Ltd, which company conducts building and construction work. The defendant formerly known as Valeclaw Pty Ltd is a corporate vehicle controlled by Mr Robert Britt. Mr Britt is a former director and employee of Stuart Pty Ltd. He was also a director of Ketrim Pty Ltd the plaintiff. He apparently was appointed a director on 4 February 2000 in respect of both companies and resigned on 1 December 2000. 3 The claim concerns the entitlement to part of what is claimed to be the defendant's entitlement to profit from a development of certain properties. The amount claimed relates to a development of some land at Clontarf a suburb of Brisbane. 4 The plaintiff says that there are three reasons why there is a genuine dispute and consequently the demand ought to be set aside. In short these grounds are: --