1 MASTER SANDERSON: This was the plaintiff's application to set aside a statutory demand. After hearing argument, I set aside the demand and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs, including reserved costs. I indicated I would publish reasons for my decision. These are those reasons.

2 The application was supported by an affidavit of Abdel Wahab Osman sworn 22 April 2014. Mr Osman is an employed manager of the plaintiff and is authorised by its director, Kim Johnson, to swear the affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff. He maintains there is a genuine dispute as to the debt. In fact, I set the demand aside under the provisions of s 459J(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). I was satisfied there was a defect in the demand and substantial injustice would be caused unless the demand was set aside. Mr Osman's affidavit has, as attachment AW01, a copy of the demand.

3 The amount of the demand is $30,712.81. Under the heading 'Description of the debt' found in the schedule to the demand there appears the following:

Judgment debt - ordered on 4 March 2014 at District Court of Western Australia at Perth

4 Attached to the demand is a document entitled 'Third party (third defendant's by counterclaim) bill of costs'. This document appears to have been used in proceedings in the District Court. The heading of the action is as follows:

ST KILDA BEACH TAXI SCHOOL AND STAFFING PTY LTD

(ACN 007 244 895) Plaintiff

(First Defendant by Counterclaim)

and

CENTRAL TAXI MANAGEMENT PTY LTD

(ACN 134 624 963) First Defendant

(Second Defendant by Counterclaim)

EMBLETON MOTOR CO PTY LTD

(ACN 128 337 959) Second Defendant

KIM JOHNSON Third Defendant

and

ABDURAHMAN SAEDI Third Party

(Third Defendant by Counterclaim)

5 The document is undated on its face but has on it 'December 2013'. What follows is a bill of costs which appears to have been assessed by a Deputy Registrar of the District Court. At the foot of the document there is the following:

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 4 day of [March] 2013 taxed the above Bill of Costs save for items 24 30 and allowed the same in the sum of $46,412.51.

6 No affidavit accompanied the demand. Presumably then the defendant was relying on s 459E(3) because the amount demanded was a 'judgment debt'.

7 The problems with the demand are, with respect, obvious. If the demand is based upon the amount of the taxed costs, there is no obvious reason why the demand should be for $30,712.81 when the taxed costs are $46,412.51. The defendant did file an affidavit sworn 29 April 2014. In that affidavit he says he anticipated the plaintiff might argue it had an offsetting claim in an amount of $15,699.70. He therefore did not claim for the full amount of the taxed costs but the lesser amount stated in the demand. There is nothing in the demand which explains how the lesser figure is calculated. If an affidavit had been provided to the plaintiff explaining how the amount demanded was calculated then no difficulty would arise. Here the plaintiff might speculate how the figure in the demand was arrived at but it would be nothing more than speculation. The plaintiff is entitled to know how much it is expected to pay: see Main Camp Tea Tree Oil Ltd v Australian Rural Group Ltd [2002] NSWSC 219; (2002) 20 ACLC 726.

8 There are other defects in the demand which, while of a minor nature, go to compound the difficulty. The date in the allocatur is 4 March 2013. That must be a mistake - it must be 4 March 2014. But the mistake was occasioned by the defendant. The taxing officer wrote in the day and the month. But the year - 2013 - was typed in. No doubt the date could be amended under the slip rule. But as it stands at the moment it is confusing.

9 It is also not entirely clear whether the plaintiff is liable to make payment of the costs as assessed. The third party, the present defendant in this application, has clearly obtained an order for costs against someone. Given the demand is directed at the plaintiff, presumably the costs order in favour of the third party in the District Court proceedings was made against the second defendant in the District Court action, the plaintiff in these proceedings. In fact, in Mr Osman's affidavit he acknowledges the plaintiff is indebted to the defendant: see par 7.1. But in formulating a demand, a party must make it clear the basis upon which the demand is made. A reference to the judgment and the costs order should have been made and would have clarified the position. As it is, to simply attach the bill of costs signed by the taxing officer was nothing more or less than confusing.

10 For these reasons I was satisfied, if the demand was not set aside, a substantial injustice would be visited on the plaintiff. I made orders accordingly.