HIS HONOUR: Before the Court are two applications under (CTH) Corporations Act 2001, s 459G, to set aside creditors' statutory demands. In proceedings 2015/245329, the plaintiff 12 Years Juice Foods Australia Pty Ltd, formerly known as Nudie Juice Foods Australia Pty Ltd, and to which for the sake of convenience I shall refer as "JFA", applies to set aside a demand served on it on 31 July 2015 by Dr Ronald Binetter claiming a debt of $200,000 which is described in the Schedule to the demand in the following terms:
On demand loans from the creditor to the company pursuant to cheques drawn by the creditor in favour of the company which were presented by the company on the following dates:
24 March 2011 $100,000;
25 March 2011 $70,000;
25 March 2011 $30,000,
Total $200,000.
In proceedings 2015/254776, Ligon 158 Pty Ltd (which I shall call "Ligon 158", or "158") applies to set aside a demand served on it on 10 August 2015 by Ms Deborah Huber claiming a debt of $410,000 described in the Schedule to the demand as follows:
On demand loan from the creditor to the company pursuant to a cheque drawn by the creditor in favour of the company on 1 July 2010 and presented by the company on 2 July 2010: $410,000,
Total $410,000.
Mr Andrew John Binetter is a director of each of JFA and Ligon 158. Dr Ronald Binetter - from whom he is estranged - is his brother and the husband of Ms Deborah Huber. Because of the commonality of the parties, the proceedings were heard together with evidence in one being evidence in the other, although there is only a slight overlap in the relevant factual material. The sole issue in each case is whether there is a genuine dispute as to the existence of the debts to which each demand relates.
The applicable law on such an application is well established, and has recently been collected by Black J in Re Wollongong Coal Ltd [2015] NSWSC 1680 (at [9] to [22]). For present purposes, it suffices to summarise the principles as follows. A dispute is to be regarded as genuine if it is not plainly vexatious or frivolous or may have some substance, or involves a plausible contention requiring investigation. The task faced by a company challenging a statutory demand on this ground is by no means a difficult or demanding one, and the company will fail only if it is found that the contentions upon which it seeks to rely in mounting its challenge are so devoid of substance that no further investigation is warranted. The Court does not engage in a balancing exercise between the strengths of competing contentions; but if it sees any factor that on rational grounds indicates an arguable case on the part of the company, it must find that a genuine dispute exists, even though the contrary case seems stronger. Except in extreme cases, the Court on this kind of application is not ordinarily concerned to engage in an inquiry as to the credit of the deponent of the affidavit filed in support of the application: the question is whether there is plausible evidence to establish the existence of a genuine dispute, not whether the evidence is likely to be accepted on a final hearing of any such claim.
It is against the background of those principles that I consider these applications.
Mr Andrew John Binetter was cross-examined, by video-link from New York, without any spectacular result. He certainly made no concession in the course of his cross-examination that would result in the Court being persuaded on that basis that there was no genuine dispute. But it was distinctly put to him that the disputes he sought to raise were, in effect, spurious - which he denied. If his denial is plausible, I must find that there is a genuine dispute.
Dr Binetter and Ms Huber were ultimately not cross-examined, but on the basis that I should draw no adverse inference from the failure to impugn their evidence in that way.
[3]
Ligon 158
I turn first to the Ligon 158 case. Essentially, the competing contentions are that the defendant Ms Huber says that the $410,000 referred to in the demand was advanced by her to Ligon 158 in response to a request by Mr Binetter, on behalf of Ligon 158, for a renewal of a short term loan, following the repayment with interest of an earlier loan of the same amount. On the other hand, the plaintiff says that the earlier advance was a non-refundable contribution made by Ms Huber on behalf of Dr Ronald Binetter to legal costs incurred by Ligon 158 on behalf of another company, Ligon 268, which operated Dr Binetter's ophthalmic practice, and that the apparent repayment of the earlier advance was on a temporary basis, at the request of Ms Huber in order to create an appearance of funds in her account as at 30 June 2010, following which those funds were returned to Ligon 158.
The uncontroversial facts, or those which can be objectively established, are as follows.
Ms Huber, who had previously used the surname Ezzes by reason of her having been married to Mr Steven Ezzes, operated two accounts with Westpac, which were linked. One was a home loan account, and one was an offset account which held credit funds that were set off against the mortgage loan. As at 19 February 2010, the home loan account had a debit balance of about $410,000, and the offset account had a credit balance of $425,000. On 25 February 2010, Ms Huber drew cheque number 600002 payable to Ligon 158, on the home loan account. That cheque was presented on 26 February, resulting in the home loan account having a debit balance of $820,000. However, the transaction was reversed on 1 March, the cheque being dishonoured. It seems that Ms Huber then drew another cheque, number 10027, this time on the offset account, and it was presented on 9 March, reducing the credit balance in the offset account from $420,000 to $11,000. Thus it appears that the cheque which has been put into evidence as that of 25 February 2010 was not the cheque that was ultimately paid; but ultimately nothing turns on this.
In the books of Ligon 158, the receipt of $410,000 on 9 March 2010 was recorded in a ledger for a loan account in the name of Deborah Ezzes as "Loan Deborah Ezzes $410,000".
On 28 June at 8.29am, Mr Binetter sent Ms Huber a text message, "I'm coming to get a cheque from you ... remember?" At 8.37am, she answered, "Already signed." After some further exchanges, the content of which is not relevant to the present issues, on 29 June at 2.30pm, Ms Huber sent, "Cheque in; assumed you wanted it cleared b4 June 30 so paid to expedite", Mr Binetter replied, at 2.31pm, "Yes, thank you." Ms Huber responded, "Have receipt."
In Ligon 158's books, the Deborah Ezzes ledger records "29/06/2010 repay Ezzes $410,000". On 29 June 2010 a cheque from Ligon 158 was deposited to Ms Huber's home loan account.
Ms Huber drew cheque 600005 on the home loan account, payable to Ligon 158, and dated it 1 July. On 2 July 2010, that cheque was presented against the home loan account, from which $410,000 was withdrawn. The Deborah Ezzes ledger in the Ligon 158 books records "2/07/2010 Ezzes $410,000".
Thereafter, there was no written communication about the $410,000 until 22 June 2015. By then Mr Binetter and Dr Binetter had become estranged. On that day Kemp Strang, acting for Ms Huber, wrote to the directors of Ligon 158, asserting:
We are instructed that your company is indebted to our client in the amount of $410,000 being loan funds advanced in about February 2010 on an on demand basis.
The letter demanded repayment and foreshadowed the possible issue of a s 459E demand. Polczynski Lawyers, acting for Ligon 158, responded on 1 July, requesting further time to consider the matter, observing that no particulars had been provided, and asking for further detail about the alleged debt, including any source documents. On 2 July, Kemp Strang wrote to Polczynski, repeating that the loan was advanced in about February 2010 on an "on-demand basis", and enclosing a copy of cheque 600002 of 25 February 2010.
On 15 July, in the absence of further response, Kemp Strang served a creditor's statutory demand demanding a debt of $410,000, described as "on demand loan from the creditor to the company pursuant to a cheque drawn by the creditor in favour of the company on 25 February 2010", and supported by an accompanying affidavit which deposed that the debt was due and payable and remained owing, and that there was no genuine dispute.
On 29 July, in a letter which I consider of significance, Polczynski responded to the statutory demand, relevantly as follows:
1. Dispute and repayment of alleged debt
1.1 We are instructed that:
1.1.1 Our client denies and disputes that there is a debt owing by Ligon to your client, Deborah Huber.
1.1.2 the amount of $410,000 was repaid to Deborah Ezzes as she was then named on 29 June 2010 by cheque number 500282.
It is notable that that letter did not make any assertion that the $410,000 was not a loan but a contribution made on a non-refundable basis, but instead asserted that it had been repaid. And it did not suggest that the repayment of 29 June was a transitory arrangement in order to create a temporary appearance of funds in Ms Ezzes' account.
On 30 July, Kemp Strang requested a copy of cheque 500282 or particulars of it. However, by a further letter of the same day Kemp Strang withdrew the demand dated 15 July 2015. In yet another letter of the same date, Kemp Strang asserted that they were instructed that Ligon 158 was indebted to Ms Huber for $410,000, this time described as loan funds advanced on 1 July 2010 on an on-demand basis pursuant to a cheque dated 1 July 2010 and presented on 2 July 2010, and enclosing a copy of cheque 600005. On 10 August 2015, Kemp Strang served a creditor's statutory demand on that basis, which is the demand the subject of these proceedings.
On 12 August, Polczynski responded, disputing that there was a debt owing by Ligon to Ms Huber on the basis set out in the letter of 30 July and the statutory demand of 10 August, and asserting that the advance was a gift as set out in text messages in July 2010, and that it was therefore not a loan or repayable.
At about this time, Mr Binetter instructed Ms Gaylene McCaw (the in-house accountant for Ligon 158) to "correct" the records of Ligon 158, so as to treat the payment of 2 July 2010 as a "contribution to legal expenses" and "miscellaneous income", rather than as a loan.
As I have said, the matters I have recorded so far are objectively established. The defendant's version of the disputed events is to be found in the affidavit evidence of Dr Binetter and Ms Huber. Dr Binetter says that he lent money to a number of companies upon the request of his brother Andrew, including Nudie and Ligon 158, but never agreed to contribute to the legal fees of any company. He says that in about February 2010, he had a discussion with his brother, in which Mr Andrew Binetter said, "Ronnie, do you have any more money to lend us. We are having some temporary cash flow issues"; Dr Binetter answered, "No, I don't but Deb has some money sitting in an offset account mortgage account"; and Andrew replied, "Can you ask Deb to lend it to us for three months". Dr Binetter says that he then had a discussion with Ms Huber, in which he said, "Deb, Andrew said that the family needs some cash. Can you lend the family $410,000? You can take it out of your mortgage account"; she replied, "Ron, are you serious, you know I want to pay off the mortgage"; he answered, "They will pay you back, it is only short term"; she responded, "Why would I lend money to your family?"; and he said, "I can't believe you aren't being supportive, you will get the money back, they just need it because they are having cash flow issues". Dr Binetter says that Ms Huber was angry and resented the request, and they fought over it for a couple of days. However, he was present in February 2010 when Ms Huber handed a cheque to Andrew in the sum of $410,000, and Andrew said, "Don't worry Deb, it is only temporary, you will be repaid in three months with interest"; Ms Huber said, "This is the money I have saved to pay off my mortgage, you have to pay it back within three months"; and Andrew replied, "We will, don't worry, Nudie is doing great but because we are expanding and we have orders to fill it's simply a cash flow thing, you will get your money back".
Unsurprisingly, Ms Huber's version is generally consistent with that of Dr Binetter. She deposes that she had a conversation with Dr Binetter in which he said, "Deb, Andrew said that he needs some cash, can you lend Andrew $410,000? You can just take it out of your mortgage account"; to which she responded, "Ron, are you serious, you know I want to pay off the mortgage. Why should I lend money to Nudie?"; Dr Binetter replied, "He will pay you back. Andrew told me that Nudie is having cash flow problems and that it is only a short term loan"; to which she said, "I will think about it", and they fought about it for the next couple of days as she was angry and resentful. A couple of days later, Mr Andrew Binetter visited her at her Bellevue Hill home and in Dr Binetter's presence asked, "Nudie needs money for a short period. Are you willing to lend Nudie money for say three months?"; she answered, "How much do you need?"; Andrew said, "As much as you can lend"; she replied, "I have saved around $400,000 in my home loan offset account, that is everything I have. This is the money I have saved to pay off my mortgage, you have to pay it back within three months"; and Andrew responded, "We will, don't worry, Nudie is doing great but because we are expanding and we have orders to fill it is simply a cash flow thing. You will get your money back. I will give you $3,000 interest when I pay you back. It is only a temporary loan"; to which she said, "Well tell me how to address the cheque, who exactly is borrowing the money Andrew?"; and he said, "Make it out to Ligon 158".
Coming to the events of June, Ms Huber says that she, Dr Binetter and Mr Andrew Binetter were standing in the kitchen of the Binetters' parents' home at Rawson Road in Rose Bay when Andrew handed her the cheque in repayment of the first advance and a thick bundle of notes totalling $3,000, and said, "You see, that was the easiest money you ever made. Now the business needs it for another three months on the same terms as the first loan"; to which she replied, "I really don't want to lend out money again from my mortgage account, I just got the money back"; Mr Binetter responded, "You know you can trust me", and she replied, "If you don't pay I will chase you til the day you die". Subsequently Ms Huber wrote out cheque 600005.
Dr Binetter says that he was present when Andrew handed Ms Huber a cheque and some cash and said, "Deb, isn't this the easiest money you have ever made? Can you lend the family the money for another three months on the same terms? I promise that the loan will be repaid in three months on the same terms as the first loan"; to which she replied, "If you don't pay I will chase you til the day you die".
The plaintiff's version is contained in the affidavit evidence of Mr Andrew Binetter. His first version was that he had a conversation in July 2010 with Dr Binetter to the effect that funds for legal fees on behalf of various Binetter entities were required to be paid to their lawyers Signet. As best he could recall, the conversation was to the effect that he said, "Ronald, we need further funds to pay Signet, can you contribute an additional amount of money for that purpose? As before, payment will need to go through Ligon 158", to which Dr Binetter replied, "Yes, sure, I will contribute as much as I can". In a later affidavit, the plaintiff says that it was in about February 2010 that he had a conversation with Dr Binetter in which he said, "Ron, we need money to fund the accounting and legal costs for Ligon 268", to which Dr Binetter replied, "Deb has at least 400,000 in her offset account, I'll get Deb to give you a cheque from there". The plaintiff says that the proceeds were appropriated towards reimbursement of persons who had paid legal and accounting costs on behalf of Ligon 158. In June 2010, a further conversation occurred between Mr Binetter and Dr Binetter in which the latter said, "Deb's got a problem with Steve, she needs to show him that there is money in the offset account, can I have the $410,000 back", to which he replied, "That's fine, but when can Ligon 158 have the money back", to which Dr Binetter responded, "Deb will give you a new cheque after 1 July 2010". He says that when he gave Deborah the cheque he said, "Here is the cheque, when can I have a new one back", and she replied, "I will give you a new cheque in a few days". He said, "Great, I'll text you to come and pick it up", and she replied, "Okay". He denies that he handed over $3,000 in cash.
The question is whether Mr Andrew Binetter's version, as I have recorded it, raises a genuine dispute as to the existence of the debt. At first sight, the idea that a contribution by a shareholder or relative of a shareholder or spouse to a proprietary company towards its legal expenses would be treated as a gift or income and not on loan account is an implausible one. It is even more implausible when it is appreciated that the money involved in this case was not Dr Binetter's but Ms Huber's, and that it was money that she had accumulated for the purposes of setting off against her mortgage, in circumstances where her former husband Mr Ezzes (and not Dr Binetter) was making the mortgage repayments. No accountant acting in accordance with usual practice upon seeing this transaction would have regarded it as anything other than a loan. It would simply be not tax effective to treat it as income, as it was ultimately purportedly treated (following the direction to "correct" the loan account in or about August 2015, after the present dispute had arisen).
Furthermore, the transaction was originally recorded in Ligon 158's books as a loan. It remained so recorded for a period of five years. No error in that respect was detected at any time during the preparation of any draft or final accounts during that five year period. The so-called correction was made only after the dispute had arisen and the demand for repayment of the $410,000 had been made.
Most significantly, when the first creditor's statutory demand (referring to the February advance) was refuted on behalf of Mr Binetter, it was not then suggested that there was no loan, but merely that the $40,000 had been repaid. The suggestion that it was a non-repayable contribution was not raised until after the second statutory demand had been served - even though the second demand, founded on the 1 July advance, had been foreshadowed in the letter of 30 July 2015, it was not raised in response to that letter until after the demand had been served.
I accept that it is at least arguable that Dr Binetter conducted his surgery through or under the auspices of Ligon 268, and that he acknowledged responsibility to contribute in some way to legal expenses incurred by Ligon 158 on behalf of Ligon 168 (or which were in some way attributable to Ligon 268); but those facts are quite ambivalent as to whether any such contribution was to be by way of loan, or by way of the only legal alternative, which is gift. Accordingly, those matters do not lend support to the proposition that there is a genuine dispute.
Then there are the text messages. It may be said that the text messages do not savour of Ms Huber being a reluctant lender, as she suggests in her evidence; but the attitude she expressed to her husband Dr Binetter may well not have been reflected in her communications with his brother. The text messages support the view that over the preceding weekend Mr Binetter handed her the cheque in repayment of the first advance, and asked for a replacement cheque, which she had prepared and signed by 28 June, post-dated to 1 July. The exchange of texts - "Cheque in, assumed you wanted it cleared b4 June 30 so paid to expedite", and Mr Binetter's response, "Yes, thank you" - are fundamentally inconsistent with Mr Binetter's version that the money was returned in order to enable Ms Huber to demonstrate the funds in her account as at 30 June to Mr Ezzes: it bespeaks that the repayment by 30 June was in some way to serve Mr Binetter's rather than Ms Huber's requirements. That aspect of the texts is telling against Mr Binetter's version.
It may correctly be said that the defendant's version has evolved: in the correspondence between the solicitors and in the creditor's statutory demand, the debt was described as an "on demand loan"; only in Ms Huber's and Dr Binetter's affidavit of March 2016, did it become a loan with a term of three months. But this discrepancy is not material - both versions are consistent with the transaction being a loan and not a gift (or "contribution", as Mr Binetter described it).
The incredible implausibility of Ms Huber donating her savings of $410,000 for legal expenses incurred by her husband's brother's company on a basis that it would never be repayable, would still not suffice of itself to deny this dispute the epithet of "genuine". However, when one superimposes on it the facts that it was originally documented in 158's books as a loan; that that was "corrected" only after the present dispute had arisen; that when the first demand in respect of the February advance was rebutted, there was no suggestion then that it was not a loan but a non-repayable contribution, and no reference to the idea that the 30 June repayment was merely a transitory device to create an appearance in Ms Huber's account; and that the text messages of 29 June falsify Mr Binetter's version of the repayment, I am satisfied that the dispute as to this debt is not a genuine one, but one created after the demand for repayment was made: as appears from, first, the failure to raise it in respect of the first creditor's statutory demand and, secondly, the so-called "correction" of the ledger some time in July, August or September 2015.
Accordingly, in the Ligon 158 matter, I am not satisfied that there is a genuine dispute, and that application will be dismissed.
[4]
12 Years Juice Foods Australia Pty Ltd
I turn then to the 12 Years Juice Foods Australia matter.
The competing contentions are, on the part of the defendant Ronald Binetter, that he made a loan through three cheques of $100,000, $30,000 and $70,000 to JFA (then known as Nudie Juice Foods Australia), in response to a request by Andrew Binetter on behalf of JFA; while the plaintiff says that the loan was made to Ligon 158, though paid by direction to JFA, and was repayable by Ligon 158. Incidentally, the plaintiff also says that the loan has been repaid by Ligon 158 by multiple setoffs against amounts payable by Ligon 268 to Ligon 158 and other amounts payable by Dr Binetter to Ligon 268.
The objectively established facts are as follows:
On 24 March 2011, Dr Binetter signed a cheque on his account - but which was apparently filled out as to the payee, and the amount and the butt by Mr Andrew Binetter - payable to Nudie Foods Australia Pty Ltd for $100,000. On 25 March 2011, Dr Binetter signed two further cheques on his account - again apparently filled out by Mr Andrew Binetter - in the sums of $70,000 and $30,000 respectively, also payable to Nudie Foods Australia. Those advances were booked in the accounts of Ligon 158 (as trustee of the Caringbah Investment Trust) as a loan from Dr Binetter to Ligon 158 and described as, "Payment to Nudie from R Binetter on behalf of the investors".
On 2 April 2015, Kemp Strang wrote to the directors of 12 Years Juice Foods (not the same company as JFA) asserting that they were instructed that that company was indebted to Dr Binetter for $200,000, demanding repayment and foreshadowing a demand under Corporations Act, s 459E. Polczynski Lawyers replied on 20 April, requesting further time to take instructions. On 29 April, Polczynski Lawyers requested further particulars of the alleged debt. On 1 May, Kemp Strang specified the three cheques to which I have referred. On 4 June, Polczynski responded, "Our client does not acknowledge the alleged debt owed to Ronald Binetter which was particularised in the above email".
On 5 June, Kemp Strang foreshadowed the issue of a s 459E demand, but observed that if further information were provided due consideration would be given to it. The threat of a demand was repeated in an email of 17 June. A demand addressed to 12 Years Juice Foods Pty Ltd for the sum in question, and particularising the three cheques in question, was served on 18 June 2015.
On 6 July, Polczynski replied, asserting that they acted for 12 Years Juice Foods, for JFA (being the present plaintiff) and for Ligon 158, and that the contention that 12 Years Juice Foods owed $200,000 to Dr Binetter was inappropriate. On 7 July, Kemp Strang withdrew that creditor's statutory demand. On 14 July, they wrote asserting a debt of $200,000 owing by JFA and demanding payment within seven days. Polczynski responded on 14 July seeking further particulars, including details of the cheques. On 17 July, Kemp Strang repeated the demand and particularised the three cheques in question. On 31 July, the creditor's statutory demand the subject of these proceedings was served.
On 20 August, Polczynski responded that the fact that the cheques may be payable to JFA was not conclusive evidence of the borrowing of the funds by that company, and that Andrew Binetter would depose that the funds were paid to JFA at the direction of Ligon 158, and that Ligon 158 was the borrowing entity, but that it no longer owed the amount in question to Dr Binetter.
Dr Binetter's version is that Andrew Binetter approached him on about 24 March 2011 and said, "Ron, one of the Nudie companies, Nudie Foods Australia, needs some money urgently, can you help?" and Dr Binetter replied, "Sure, how much is needed?"; Andrew said, "Can you do $100,000?"; he said, "I can loan $100,000 but it will need to be paid back when I ask for it"; Andrew replied, "Fine"; there followed the first $100,000 payment. Then on 25 March, Andrew said, "Ron, Nudie Foods needs another $100,000 urgently, can you help again?" He replied, "Okay, I can loan another $100,000 as long as I get it back when I ask for it", and Andrew responded, "Of course, thank you"; and there then followed the two cheques for $30,000 and $70,000.
Andrew Binetter's version is that he said, "Ronald, can you provide $200,000 to Ligon 158". His brother replied, "Okay". Andrew said:
Can you pay the $200,000 to Nudie Foods Australia because as you are well aware with the other investors in Nudie, all moneys leant into Nudie from our family goes in a formal loan agreement with Ligon 158, Ligon 237, Dunbar Investments and Dunmaf Investments? As you know, Ligon 158 coordinates all of these loan arrangements as the formal borrower and because Nudie Foods Australia needs the money today, can you please make the cheque payable to Nudie direct and I will have Gaylene allocate the moneys correctly.
Dr Binetter is said to have responded, "I don't think that I have $200,000 in the one account, so I will get it from several accounts and make the cheques out to Nudie".
Not all of what Mr Binetter says could be correct, given that it is his handwriting that appears on the cheques in question; but it is of considerable significance that these advances were treated in what appear to be a contemporaneous entry in the books of Ligon 158 as a loan to Ligon 158, and the accountant Ms Gaylene McCaw gives evidence to the effect that that is how she was contemporaneously directed to account for them. There is a plausible explanation for why the payment was made to JFA, although the loan was to Ligon 158. The very fact that the cheques and the butts appear to be in Mr Andrew Binetter's handwriting suggests that he prepared the cheques, and that Dr Binetter may well have been agnostic as to the precise destination of the funds in question. Moreover, Dr Binetter explained in his evidence in the Ligon 158 proceedings that the relationship between Nudie and Ligon 158 was a lending one, that Ligon 158 was not a trading entity but the vehicle which loaned money to Nudie, and that he leant money to a number of companies including Nudie and Ligon 158 at Andrew Binetter's request, which suggests that it would accord with usual arrangements for such a loan to be made to Ligon 158.
There may be very significant difficulties with the argument that any loan to Ligon has been consolidated with and set off against moneys owed or allegedly owed by Dr Binetter to Ligon 268, and by Ligon 268 to Ligon 158, but they do not detract from the argument that there is apparently contemporaneous support for the proposition that the loan was made to Ligon 158, and then effectively on-lent by Ligon 158 to Nudie, rather than made by Dr Binetter to Nudie.
In those circumstances, the contention that the true borrower is Ligon 158 may have substance. Alternatively put, there is a factor that on rational grounds indicates an arguable case on the part of JFA. Thus, I am satisfied that there is a genuine dispute as to the JFA debt.
[5]
Orders
In proceedings 2015/254776, the Court therefore orders that:
1. The originating process be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff pay the defendant's costs.
In proceedings 2015/245329, the Court therefore orders that:
1. The statutory demand dated 31 July 2015 served by the defendant Ronald Binetter on the plaintiff 12 Years Juice Foods Australia Pty Ltd be set aside.
2. The defendant pay the plaintiff's costs.
[6]
DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.
Decision last updated: 20 May 2016