When exercising the discretion under s 459J(1)(b) to set aside a statutory demand, the court must consider the relative position of both parties against the objectives of Pt 5.4, not merely whether substantial injustice would be caused to the party seeking to set aside the demand. Claims by third parties associated with the debtor company (such as claims by a trust in which the debtor holds a minority interest) that are prospective, contingent and indirect cannot constitute a proper basis for setting aside a statutory demand. The legislative intent of Pt 5.4 does not preclude statutory demands merely because there are ongoing disputes between the parties unrelated to the debt the subject of the demand.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 94 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 94 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.