The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal from orders setting aside a statutory demand, holding that non-compliance with UCPR r 10.3(3) (failure to include a statement regarding interstate service) does not render an originating process invalid for the purposes of the jurisdictional requirements of s 459G of the Corporations Act, following the distinction drawn in Financial Solutions Australasia v Predella between statutory jurisdictional requirements and procedural rules. The Court also confirmed that the omission of a 'no genuine dispute' statement from the affidavit accompanying a statutory demand remains a proper basis for setting aside the demand under s 459J(1)(b), applying Kisimul Holdings v Clear Position. The application was also refused on the basis that the summons was filed out of time without adequate explanation, the statutory demand was stale, and the applicant had reassigned the underlying debt.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.
1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.