The Court held that a consensual stay of a judgment debt is a sufficient basis to set aside a statutory demand under s 459J(1)(b), reasoning that it would be inconsistent with the court's stay orders to permit a judgment creditor to press statutory demands that effectively seek to enforce the stayed judgment. The Court also held that s 459H(4) does not empower the court to vary a statutory demand to reflect a potentially reduced debt that might arise from separate challenge proceedings — such a reduced amount would constitute a new and different debt. Separately, the Court was satisfied that an offsetting claim existed based on pre-existing breach of contract proceedings and hearsay evidence of a forensic accountant's report, where the claim amount comfortably exceeded the statutory demands.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.