TELPACIFIC v FORDANCE [2002] NSWSC 253

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : TELPACIFIC v FORDANCE [2002] NSWSC 253 CURRENT JURISDICTION: EQUITY DIVISION FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 5971/2001 HEARING DATE(S) : 19/03/02 JUDGMENT DATE : 19 March 2002

PARTIES : TELPACIFIC PTY LIMITED v FORDANCE PTY LIMITED JUDGMENT OF : Master Macready at 1

COUNSEL : SOLICITORS : Jason Li Lawyers for plaintiff CATCHWORDS : Corporations Law. Application to set aside statutory demand under s 459 of the Corporations Law. No matter of principle. DECISION : Paragraph 6

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

MASTER MACREADY

TUESDAY, 19 MARCH 2002

5971/01 - TEL.PACIFIC PTY LTD v FORDANCE PTY LTD

JUDGMENT 1 MASTER: This is an application to set aside a demand under s 459G of the Corporations Act. The demand is one which the defendant served on 28 November and is dated 21 November 2001. 2 The demand claims $21,787 pursuant to an agreement between the parties dated 29 November 2000. That agreement related to the sale of customers of an internet service provider to the plaintiff. Under the agreement the plaintiff was obliged to make payments equal to the internet service provider fees which were paid for the period 1 December 2000 to 28 February 2001. The fees were paid from 1 December 2000 up until 16 January and the relevant claim is apparently from 17 January to 28 February. 3 There are a number of reasons why this is a genuine dispute. The first is that the authority of the director to sign is in question, he ceasing to be a director of the company prior to executing relevant documents. Second, and more importantly, it appears that, in fact, the amount claimed in the statutory demand is nothing more than an estimate of what the fees might be thought to be due by the defendant and hence the issue of the demand. 4 Calculations of the appropriate fees and the payments that have been made by the plaintiff to the defendant, in fact indicate that the defendant has been over-paid by the sum of $2,429.90. On this basis, clearly the demand ought to be set aside. 5 Accordingly, I order that the statutory demand served on the plaintiff by the defendant dated 21 November 2001 be set aside. 6 I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs. **********