Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 31 MAY 2020

Liquidators held personally liable to pay costs on statutory demand application

Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward
Contributor
Cooper Grace Ward

Cooper Grace Ward

Cooper Grace Ward was established in 1980 and has quickly become one of the largest independent...

View firm profile
Explore more from Cooper Grace Ward

The statutory demand was set aside by the Court and the liquidators were ordered to personally pay the costs.

AustraliaInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Graham Roberts
Graham Roberts
Oliver Caine
Oliver Caine
Author LinkedIn connections

A company in liquidation served a creditor's statutory demand for debt where there was a genuine dispute about the existence of the alleged debt. The statutory demand was set aside by the Court and the liquidators were ordered to personally pay costs on an indemnity basis.

What happened

In SJG Developments Pty Limited v NT Two Nominees Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2020] QSC 104:

  • the liquidators of the company in liquidation caused a statutory demand to be issued
  • the recipient of the statutory demand applied to the Court to set aside the statutory demand
  • both before and after it made the application, the recipient wrote to the liquidators giving details of the dispute as to the existence of the alleged debt

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

© Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers

Cooper Grace Ward is a leading Australian law firm based in Brisbane.

This publication is for information only and is not legal advice. You should obtain advice that is specific to your circumstances and not rely on this publication as legal advice. If there are any issues you would like us to advise you on arising from this publication, please contact Cooper Grace Ward Lawyers.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Voluntary Administration In Australia

Voluntary Administration under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 offers Australian companies a formal insolvency process where an independent liquidator investigates whether the business can be preserved. During this process, most unsecured claims are stayed while creditors, employees, and secured parties navigate distinct rights and exceptions. Understanding the strategic timing for directors, the decision-making power of creditors, and the specific protections available to employees proves critical t
AustraliaInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Trust Structures And Asset Protection During Bankruptcy

Trust structures can protect assets held for others, but they do not shield a bankrupt person's own entitlements, trustee indemnity rights, or transfers made to defeat creditors. The deed, financial records and transaction history determine whether trust property remains outside the bankruptcy estate or becomes available to creditors through beneficial interests, indemnity claims, or voidable transaction recovery.
AustraliaInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

How Much Income Can A Bankrupt Earn?

Under Australia's bankruptcy system, there is no limit on how much income a bankrupt person can earn, though they may be required to make compulsory contributions if their after-tax income exceeds statutory thresholds. This article examines how income contribution calculations work, what thresholds apply based on the number of dependants, and why the system balances creditor interests with maintaining a reasonable standard of living for bankrupt individuals.
AustraliaInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Worrells
Worrells
Article

Clawback Risks In Bankruptcy Explained

Bankruptcy trustees can challenge pre-bankruptcy transactions under sections 120, 121, and 122 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966, targeting undervalued transfers, creditor-defeating arrangements, and preferential payments. Understanding the statutory tests, timing rules, and evidentiary requirements is essential for recipients facing clawback demands, as market value alone does not guarantee protection and poor documentation can prove decisive.
AustraliaInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Sequestration Order And Bankruptcy Notices Explained

When a creditor seeks to make an individual bankrupt through a sequestration order, the process involves strict statutory requirements including judgment thresholds, bankruptcy notices, and court scrutiny. Understanding the procedural steps, potential defects, and strategic alternatives is essential for both creditors pursuing debt recovery and debtors facing insolvency proceedings.
AustraliaInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Recovering Company Debts Using Statutory Demands

A statutory demand is one of the fastest and most powerful tools for recovering undisputed debts from Australian companies, engaging insolvency provisions that give debtors just 21 days to respond. While it creates significant commercial pressure that often leads to payment or negotiated resolution, it must be used carefully for genuinely undisputed debts to avoid being set aside and incurring adverse costs.
AustraliaInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Article

Bankruptcy Restrictions In Australia

Bankruptcy restrictions in Australia govern what undischarged bankrupts can and cannot do during the typical three-year bankruptcy period. While most people can continue working and earning income, they must obtain written trustee consent before overseas travel, disclose bankruptcy for transactions above the indexed threshold, and refrain from managing corporations without court leave. Understanding these restrictions—from employment and business operations to credit disclosure and asset dealings̵
AustraliaInsolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring
Stonegate Legal
Stonegate Legal
Video

It Depends – Can A Limited Recourse Borrowing Trust Acquire More Than One Asset? (Video)

Under Australian superannuation law, limited recourse borrowing arrangements typically require separate bare trusts for each asset acquired by an SMSF. However, certain exceptions allow multiple assets to be held in a single bare trust, including identical assets purchased simultaneously, permanent fixtures spanning multiple titles, and assets legally required to be dealt with together. Understanding these nuanced rules is critical to avoid serious compliance, tax, and duty implications.
AustraliaWealth Management
Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward
Video

National Safe Work Month – For Life – Why WHS Matters (Video)

October is National Safe Work Month, and Cooper Grace Ward's workplace relations and safety team explores why work health and safety matters for every business. Special counsel Gemma Sharp examines the legal duties of PCBUs and officers to protect workers from both physical and psychosocial hazards, emphasizing that safety must be woven into the fabric of business operations rather than treated as an afterthought.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward
Podcast

Podcast: Inside The Claim With CGW – Flight Risk: Grounded By A Galley Cart

Cooper Grace Ward's Damien Jarrett and Jess Byrne examine Hunter v Alliance Airlines Pty Ltd, a Supreme Court workers' compensation case involving a cabin crew member's back injury from a jammed galley cart. The discussion explores how the case evolved from maintenance and staffing allegations into a training dispute, and examines the court's approach to quantum arguments when the injured worker chose to pursue her own business rather than return to employment.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward
Article

First Right To Disconnect Rulings Clarify The Bar For A Contravention Of The Right To Disconnect Laws

In the first substantive rulings on Australia's right to disconnect laws, the South Australian Employment Tribunal has determined that an Adelaide hairdressing salon did not breach its apprentices' rights despite sending frequent out-of-hours messages via TikTok and Snapchat. The Tribunal drew a critical distinction between unwelcome communication and actually preventing employees from disconnecting, establishing that subjective pressure without demonstrable consequences does not constitute a breach.
AustraliaEmployment and HR
Cooper Grace Ward
Cooper Grace Ward