CORPORATIONS — statutory demand — where statutory demand served on Plaintiff claiming judgment debt arising from adjudication determination — where Plaintiff has commenced proceedings against Defendant in Supreme Court of Queensland seeking damages for defective and incomplete construction work — whether statutory demand failed to specify the debt due — whether genuine dispute regarding the claim for post-judgment interest — where Defendant accepts there is a genuine offsetting claim arising from construction defects but disputes quantum of claim — where dispute regarding construction of provisions of contract — whether quantum of genuine offsetting claim is greater than admitted amount of debt — whether relief ought to be conditional of payment of adjudicated amount into Supreme Court of Queensland
Quick Take
1Where competing constructions of a contract are each at least fairly arguable, it is inappropriate on an application to set aside a statutory demand to resolve the question of contractual interpretation; the existence of the contestable construction issue itself gives rise to a genuine dispute or supports a genuine offsetting claim.
2A party that has already consented to the dismissal of an application for payment into court in the substantive proceeding faces difficulty persuading a court exercising discretion under s 459M of the Corporations Act to impose payment into court as a condition of setting aside a statutory demand.
3Whether an adjudicator's determination as to the rate of interest, recorded in an adjudication certificate filed as a judgment under s 93 of the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act 2017 (Qld), displaces the statutory rate of post-judgment interest under the Civil Proceedings Act 2011 (Qld) was left open as a contestable issue of statutory interpretation sufficient to establish a genuine dispute.
