The Court held that an obvious clerical error in a statutory demand — inverting the creditor and debtor in the schedule — did not constitute a defect causing substantial injustice under s 459J(1)(a) where the demand, read as a whole together with the accompanying affidavit, clearly identified the debt and the recipient knew the true position. The Court also held that a creditor's refusal to withdraw defective statutory demands and reissue fresh ones did not constitute 'some other reason' to set aside the demands under s 459J(1)(b), particularly where the debt was undisputed and the debtor had ignored a prior demand letter. The Court declined to exercise the conditional power under s 459M in the absence of any demonstration that a pending application for special leave to appeal was advanced on reasonable and arguable grounds.
The full text is available to signed-in members.