NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: In the matters of Shaolin Temple Foundation (Australia) Ltd [2016] NSWSC 1232 Hearing dates: 4 and 15 August 2016 Decision date: 06 September 2016 Jurisdiction: Equity Before: Barrett AJA Decision: 2016/37802 1. Order that the statutory demand 21 December 2015 served on the plaintiff by the defendant be set aside. 2. The question of costs is reserved for further argument.
2016/37815 1. Order that the statutory demand 4 January 2016 served on the plaintiff by the defendant be set aside. 2. The question of costs is reserved for further argument. Catchwords: CORPORATIONS – winding up – statutory demand – whether genuine dispute as to existence of debt – whether defect in demand
PROCEDURE – affidavits – affidavit in a foreign language – official supposedly administering affirmation has no language in common with supposed deponent – whether making of affirmation sufficiently proved by extrinsic evidence Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) Oaths Act 1900 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) Cases Cited: Aussie Vic Plant Hire Pty Ltd v Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd [2008] HCA 9; 232 CLR 314 Bechara v Bechara [2016] NSWSC 513 Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Vo [2016] NSWSC 711 Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 785 Fastling Calling Pty Ltd v Macquarie Telecom Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 299; 217 FLR 366 Graywinter Properties Pty Ltd v Gas and Fuel Corporation Superannuation Fund [1996] FCA 822; 70 FCR 452 In the matter of Shaolin Temple Foundation (Australia) Ltd [2016] NSWSC 804 Kazas-Rogaris v Gaddam [2014] NSWSC 1465 LSI Australia Pty Ltd v LSI Holdings Ltd [2007] NSWSC 1406; 25 ACLC 1602 Spacorp Australia Pty Ltd v Myer Stores Ltd [2001] VSCA 89; 19 ACLC 1270 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff – Shaolin Temple Foundation (Australia) Ltd Defendant (2016/37802) – Street Quinn Pty Ltd Defendant (2016/37815) – Kwok Leong Pang Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff – Mr J Lockhart SC with him Mr C R Brown Defendants – Mr T Rickard
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