//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2015] FCA 797
Federal Court of Australia
2015-08-07
Davies J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Solicitor for the Plaintiff: Corrs Chambers Westgarth
Counsel for the Defendant: The Defendant appeared in person
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 158 of 2015
BETWEEN: TREASURY WINE ESTATES VINTNERS LTD (ACN 004 094 599)
JUDGE: DAVIES J DATE OF ORDER: 7 AUGUST 2015 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
BETWEEN: TREASURY WINE ESTATES VINTNERS LTD (ACN 004 094 599)
JUDGE: DAVIES J DATE OF ORDER: 7 AUGUST 2015 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
BETWEEN: TREASURY WINE ESTATES VINTNERS LTD (ACN 004 094 599)
JUDGE: DAVIES J DATE OF ORDER: 7 AUGUST 2015 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
BETWEEN: TREASURY WINE ESTATES VINTNERS LTD (ACN 004 094 599)
JUDGE: DAVIES J DATE OF ORDER: 7 AUGUST 2015 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
BETWEEN: TREASURY WINE ESTATES VINTNERS LTD (ACN 004 094 599)
JUDGE: DAVIES J DATE OF ORDER: 7 AUGUST 2015 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 163 of 2015
BETWEEN: TREASURY WINE ESTATES VINTNERS LTD (ACN 004 094 599)
JUDGE: DAVIES J DATE OF ORDER: 7 AUGUST 2015 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 164 of 2015
BETWEEN: TREASURY WINE ESTATES VINTNERS LTD (ACN 004 094 599)
JUDGE: DAVIES J DATE OF ORDER: 7 AUGUST 2015 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 165 of 2015
BETWEEN: TREASURY WINE ESTATES VINTNERS LTD (ACN 004 094 599)
JUDGE: DAVIES J DATE OF ORDER: 7 AUGUST 2015 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 166 of 2015
BETWEEN: TREASURY WINE ESTATES VINTNERS LTD (ACN 004 094 599)
JUDGE: DAVIES J DATE OF ORDER: 7 AUGUST 2015 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 158 of 2015
BETWEEN: TREASURY WINE ESTATES VINTNERS LTD (ACN 004 094 599)
JUDGE: DAVIES J DATE: 7 AUGUST 2015 PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The plaintiff ("TWEV") seeks orders that nine statutory demands for payment of debt served on it by the defendant ("Mr Garrett") be set aside pursuant to ss 459G, and/or 459H, and/or 459J of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ("the Act"). TWEV contends that: (a) there is a genuine dispute between it and Mr Garrett about the existence and amount of the debt to which each statutory demand relates; (b) TWEV has an offsetting claim against Mr Garrett for an amount equal to the subject debts (save with respect to the statutory demand that is the subject of proceeding VID 159 of 2015); (c) there are defects in each statutory demand that warrant the demands being set aside; and (d) each statutory demand was issued for an improper purpose and is an abuse of process. 2 In addition, TWEV seeks an order that Mr Garrett be restrained from serving any additional statutory demand on it, or any associated entity of it, in connection with a Deed of Settlement dated 26 July 2000 ("the Deed of Settlement") made between TWEV and Mr Garrett (and others).
the law 3 Pursuant to s 459G of the Act, a company may apply to the Court for an order setting aside a statutory demand served on it. Section 459H of the Act provides: (1) This section applies where, on an application under s 459G, the Court is satisfied of either or both of the following: (a) that there is a genuine dispute between the company and the respondent about the existence or amount of a debt to which the demand relates; (b) that the company has an offsetting claim. ... (3) If the substantiated amount is less than the statutory minimum, the Court must, by order, set aside the demand. .... (6) This section has effect subject to s 459J. 4 Section 459J provides that: (1) On an application under s 459G, the Court may set aside the demand if it is satisfied that: (a) because of a defect in the demand, substantial injustice will be caused unless the demand is set aside; or (b) there is some other reason why the demand should be set aside. (2) Except as provided in subsection (1) the Court must not set aside a statutory demand because of a defect.
Section 459H of the Act 5 The principles governing the application of s 459H of the Act were recently summarised in First Equilibrium Pty Ltd v Bluestone Property Services Pty Ltd (in liq) (2013) 95 ACSR 654; [2013] FCAFC 108. These principles include: (1) For there to be a genuine dispute, there must be a "plausible contention requiring investigation". It raises the same sort of considerations as the "serious question to be tried" criterion applicable to interlocutory injunctions. The Court is not called on to determine the merits of, or to resolve, the dispute. (2) The threshold is not high or demanding; however the claim must have some merit and be genuine. That requirement has been described variously as the claim must be "real and not spurious", the claim must have "a real chance of success", there must be "a serious question to be tried". (3) A useful analogy to the burden on the party asserting the claim is that of an alleged debtor resisting an application for summary judgment. If the Court sees any factor that, on rational grounds, indicates an arguable case, it must find that a genuine dispute exists even where any case apparently available to be advanced to the contrary seems stronger. 6 In Panel Tech Industries (Australia) Pty Ltd v Australian Sky Reach Equipment Pty Ltd (No 2) [2003] NSWSC 896 at [18], Barrett J stated: … the task faced by a company challenging the statutory demand on the "genuine dispute" ground is by no means at all a difficult or demanding one. The company will fail in that task only if it is found upon the hearing of its s 459G application that the contentions upon which it seeks to rely in mounting its challenge are so devoid of substance that no further investigation is warranted. Once the company shows that even one issue has a sufficient degree of cogency to be arguable, a finding of genuine dispute must follow. The Court does not engage in any form of balancing exercise between the strengths of competing contentions. 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 where any case apparently available to be advanced against the company seems stronger. The same principles apply to the company demonstrating that it has an offsetting claim.
Section 459J(1)(a) of the Act 7 By s 9 of the Act, "defect" in relation to a statutory demand includes a misdescription of a debt or other matter. In LSI Australia Pty Ltd v LSI Holdings Ltd (2007) 25 ACLC 1602; [2007] NSWSC 1406, Austin J held at [54] that: A statutory demand is required by Form 509H to "describe the debt that is claimed". If the demand is so vague and/or ambiguous that it fails to identify, to a reasonable person in the shoes of a director of the debtor company, the general nature of the debt to a sufficient degree that the director can assess whether there is a genuine dispute as to the existence or amount of the debt or an offsetting claim, then there is a lack of something necessary for completeness, and therefore a defect in the demand. In the present case, TWEV contends that the description of the debts in each of the statutory demands are vague and ambiguous.
Section 459J(1)(b) of the Act 8 Paragraphs (a) and (b) of s 459J(1) are mutually exclusive: Kalamunda Meat Wholesalers Pty Ltd v Reg Russell & Sons Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 446 at 450; Spencer Constructions Pty Ltd v G & M Aldridge Pty Ltd (1997) 76 FCR 452 at 459. "Some other reason" means a reason other than because of a defect in the demand. The service on a company of a statutory demand which is found by the Court to be an abuse of process would constitute "some other reason why the demand should be set aside" pursuant to s 459J(1)(b): House of Tan Pty Ltd v Beachiris Pty Ltd (1996) 21 ACSR 527 at 528; SMEC International Pty Ltd v C.E.M.S. Engineering Inc (2001) 38 ACSR 595; [2001] NSWSC 459 at [35]; Roberts v Wayne Roberts Concrete Constructions Pty Ltd (2004) 50 ACSR 204; [2004] NSWSC 734 at [54]-[58].
the DEED OF SETTLEMENT 9 Before turning to the statutory demands, it is appropriate to set out relevant parts of the Deed of Settlement made on 26 July 2000 between Mr Garrett and associated parties on the one hand and TWEV and related entities on the other hand, on which the debts claimed in the statutory demands are founded. 10 Clause 9.1 provided: In consideration of the assignment by the Trustees of the Australian trade mark application number 634077 and registered marks set out in Part B of Schedule 2 to this Deed: (a) MBL shall pay the Trustees $1.8 million on the Commencement Date…. (b) Subject to clause 9.2, MBL shall pay to the Trustees a fee of $2.00 for each Case of Product sold by MBL in the MBL territory or Japan or overseas wine clubs in the period commencing 1 July 2000 and ending 30 June 2010. MBL shall not be required to make any further payments to AMG for sales of Product after 1 July 2010. Sales to any associated company of MBL shall be ordered sales for the purposes of this clause. Payment shall be made by telegraphic transfer as set out in clause 9.1(a). "MBL" is an abbreviation for Mildura Blass Ltd, the former name of TWEV. "The Trustees" are Mr Garrett and his wife as trustees of the Garrett Family Trust. "AMG" is an abbreviation for Mr Garrett and "Commencement Date" is 27 July 2000. Clause 9.2 provided: Regardless of the value of actual sales made by NBL in accordance with sub-clause 9.1(b): a) Subject to 9.2(b), MBL shall pay AMG a minimum of $75,000 in each quarter from 1 July 2000; and b) The maximum MBL shall be liable to pay AMG in any 12 month period from 1 July 2000 shall be $600,000. 11 Clause 9.3 provided: The amounts set out in Clause 9.1(b) and 9.2 above shall be payable on sales made during each quarter commencing on 1 July, 1 October, 1 January, and 1 April in each year and shall be paid within thirty (30) days of the last day of each such quarter. 12 Clause 17 contained various warranties and indemnities of the parties. Clause 17.2 provided: The AMG Entities jointly and severally indemnify MBL against all actions, proceedings, claims, demands or prosecutions of any kind or nature and howsoever arising by whomsoever and whenever brought or commenced against or incurred by MBL (or its agents and employees) and also against all costs and damages and expenses which MBL may pay or be made liable to pay in defending or settling the same arising directly or indirectly out of the registration or use by AMG of the Andrew Garrett Trade Mark, the Garrett Trade Mark, the Garrett Family Trade Mark or the Stylised Script outside the MBL Territory or arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission from the AMG Entities or any of their agents, representatives, employees or servants in relation thereto. 13 Clause 17.3 provided: MBL indemnifies the AMG entities against all actions, proceedings, claims, demands or prosecutions of any kind or nature and howsoever arising by whomsoever and whenever brought or commenced against or incurred by the AMG Entities (or their agents and employees) and also against all costs and damages and expenses which the AMG Entities may pay or be made liable to pay in defending or settling the same arising directly or indirectly out of the registration or use by MBL of the Andrew Garrett Trade Mark, the Garrett Trade Mark, the Garrett Family Trade Mark or the Stylised Script Trade Mark in the MBL Territory or arising directly or indirectly from any act or omission of MBL or any of its agents, representatives, employees or servants in relation thereto.
the statutory demands 14 The nine demands the subject of the applications under ss 459G, 458H and 459J of the Act are as follows:
VID 158 of 2015 15 On 10 March 2015, Mr Garrett served a statutory demand on TWEV in his personal capacity and as trustee of the Garrett Family Trust, claiming that TWEV owes him the amount of $1,819,573.41. The description of the debt was given as follows: For the amount of money payable to the Creditor under clause 17.3 of the Deed of Settlement dated 26 July 2000 in respect [of] the Orders of Lander J dated 27 March 2009 made in SAD 5 of 2006. 16 The statutory demand was supported by an affidavit sworn by Mr Garrett in which he deposed that TWEV is indebted to him in the amount of $1,819,573.41 and that: I know this to be true as the amount of the Debt is calculated from the orders of Justice Lander dated 27th March 2009 made in SAD 5 of 2006 and the indemnity at Clause 17.3 of a Deed of Settlement dated 26th July 2000 ("the Deed") which binds the Company to me and obliges that payment to be made to me of the money held in the Litigant's Fund of $1,294,573.41 as at 27th February 2009 plus seven payments due of $75,000 per quarter to the Trustee of the Garrett Family Trust from the 31st March 2009 to 31st July 2010. No allegation of dispute has been made to me and I believe there is no genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt. 17 This statutory demand is the subject of the application in VID 158 of 2015.
VID 159 of 2015 18 On 10 March 2015, Mr Garrett served a statutory demand on TWEV claiming that TWEV owes him the sum of $8,550,000. The description of the debt was given as follows: For the amount of money payable to the Creditor under Clauses 9.2(b) and 9.3 of the Deed of Settlement dated 26 July 2000 as at 30 March 2015. 19 In his affidavit in support, Mr Garrett deposed that TWEV is indebted to him in the amount of $8,550,000 and that: I know this to be true as the amount of the Deed is calculated from Clause 9.2(b) and Clause 9.3 of a Deed of Settlement dated 26th July 2000 ("the Deed") which binds the Company to me and obliges that payment to be made to me. No allegation of dispute has been made to me and I believe there is no dispute about the existence or amount of the debt. 20 This statutory demand is the subject of the application in VID 159 of 2015.
VID 160 of 2015 21 On 10 March 2015, Mr Garrett served a statutory demand on TWEV for payment of the amount of $219,269.60. The debt was described as: For the amount of money payable to the Creditors under Clause 17.3 of a Deed of Settlement dated 26 July 2000 to reimburse expenses in SAD 5 of 2006. 22 In his affidavit in support, Mr Garrett deposed that TWEV is indebted to himself personally and in his capacity as trustee of the Garrett Family Trust and that: I know this to be true as the amount of the Deed is the amount of my costs incurred in the agitation of SAD 29 of 2005 and SAD 5 of 2006 which I am entitled to recoup from the Company under Clause 17.3 of a Deed of Settlement dated 26th July 2000 ("the Deed") which binds the Company to me and obliges that payment to be made to me. No allegation of dispute has been made to me and I believe there is no genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt. 23 The statutory demand is the subject of the application in VID 160 of 2015.
VID 161 of 2015 24 On 10 March 2015, Mr Garrett served a statutory demand on TWEV for payment of the amount of $52,500. The debt was described as: For the amount of money payable to the Creditor under Clause 17.3 of the Deed of Settlement dated 26 July 2000 in respect to GST paid by the trustee to the Australian Taxation Office between 30 March 2009 and 31 July 2010. 25 In his affidavit in support, Mr Garrett deposed that TWEV is indebted to him in the amount of $52,500 and that: I know this to be true as the amount of the Debt is calculated from the Part A Trust Money paid to Hambros and Cahill Lawyers to commence proceedings against the Company and the indemnity at Clause 17.3 of a Deed of Settlement dated 26th July 2000 ("the Deed") which binds the Company to me and obliges that payment to be made to me. No allegation of dispute has been made to me and I believe there is no genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt. 26 This statutory demand is the subject of the application in VID 161 of 2015.
VID 162 of 2015 27 On 10 March 2015, Mr Garrett in his personal capacity and as trustee of the Garrett Family Trust served a statutory demand on TWEV for payment of the amount of $112,500. The description of the debt was given as follows: For the amount of money payable to the Creditors under Clause 17.3 of a Deed of Settlement dated 26 July 2000 as a loss subject to indemnity pursuant to orders of the Federal Court of Australia on 27 March 2009. 28 In his affidavit in support, Mr Garrett deposed that TWEV is indebted to himself in his personal capacity and as trustee of the Garrett Family Trust in the amount of $112,500 and that: I know this to be true as the amount of the (sic) order dated 27th March 2009 made by the Federal Court of Australia in SAD 5 of 2006 which I am entitled to recoup from the Company under clause 17.3 of a Deed of Settlement dated 26th July 2000 ("the Deed") which binds the Company to me and obliges that payment to be made to me. 29 This statutory demand is the subject of the application in VID 162 of 2015.
VID 163 of 2015 30 On 10 March 2015, Mr Garrett served a statutory demand on TWEV for payment of the amount of $5,300,000. The description of the debt was given as follows: For the amount of money payable to the Creditor under Clause 17.3 of the Deed of Settlement dated 26 July 2000. 31 In his affidavit in support, Mr Garrett deposed that TWEV is indebted to him in the amount of $5,300,000 and that: I know this to be true as the amount of the Debt is calculated from Clause 17.3 of a Deed of Settlement dated 20th July 2000 ("the Deed") which binds the Company to me and obliges that payment to be made to me in respect to the loss incurred under the First Registered Mortgage over Springwood Park in favour of me in my capacity as trustee of the Andrew Garrett Family Trust. No allegation of dispute has been made to me and I believe there is no genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt. 32 This statutory demand is the subject of the application in VID 163 of 2015.
VID 164 of 2015 33 On 10 March 2015, Mr Garrett served on TWEV a creditor's statutory demand for payment of the amount of $150,000. The debt was described as: For the amount of money payable to the Creditor under Clauses 9.2(b) and 9.3 of the Deed of Settlement dated 26 July 2000 as at 1 of July 2014. 34 In his affidavit in support, Mr Garrett deposed that TWEV is indebted to him in the amount of $150,000 and that: I know this to be true as the amount of the Debt is calculated from Clause 9.2(b) and Clause 9.3 of a Deed of Settlement dated 26th July 2000 ("the Deed") which binds the Company to me and obliges that payment to be made to me. No allegation of dispute has been made to me and I believe there is no genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt. 35 This statutory demand is the subject of the application in VID 164 of 2015.
VID 165 of 2015 36 On 10 March 2015, Mr Garrett served on TWEV a statutory demand for payment of the amount of $310,000. The description of the debt was given as follows: For the amount of money payable to the Creditor under Clause 17.3 of the Deed of Settlement dated 26 July 2000. 37 In his affidavit in support, Mr Garrett deposed that TWEV is indebted to him in the amount of $310,000 and that: I know this to be true as the amount of the Debt is calculated from the Part A Trust Money paid to Hambros and Cahill Lawyers to commence proceedings against the Company and the indemnity of Clause 17.3 of a Deed of Settlement dated 26th July 2000 ("the Deed") which binds the Company to me and obliges that payment to be made to me. No allegation of dispute has been made to me and I believe there is no genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt. 38 This statutory demand is the subject of the application in VID 165 of 2015.
VID 166 of 2015 39 On 10 March 2015, Mr Garrett served on TWEV a statutory demand for payment of the amount of $37,000. The description of the debt was given as follows: For the amount of money payable to the Creditor under Clause 17.3 of the Deed of Settlement dated 26 July 2000 in respect to Legal Costs Paid to the Company in VICSC-2005-7323. 40 In his affidavit in support, Mr Garret deposed that TWEV is indebted to him in the amount of $37,000 and that: I know this to be true as the amount of the debt is calculated from orders of Master Harper dated 16th December 2005 made in VISC-2005-7323 and the indemnity at Clause 17.3 of a Deed of Settlement dated 26th July 2000 ("the Deed") which binds the company to me and obliges that payment be made to me. No allegation of dispute has been made to me and I believe there is no genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt. 41 This statutory demand is the subject of the application in VID 166 of 2015.
EVIDENCE 42 Mr Jason Ryan, the Deputy General Counsel of Treasury Wine Estates Limited ("TWE"), the parent company of TWEV, swore an affidavit in each proceeding in which he deposed to the matters set out below. 43 For the quarterly periods from 26 July 2000 to 1 April 2005, TWEV made payments in the manner provided for under Clause 9 of the Deed of Settlement. 44 On 24 September 2004, a sequestration order was made against Mr Garrett and Mr Peter Ivan Macks ("Mr Macks") was appointed trustee of Mr Garrett's bankrupt estate. 45 In mid-2005, TWEV commenced interpleader proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning the quarterly payments due under Clause 9 of the Deed of Settlement. The claimants to the payments included Mr Macks, and a Mr Shu Mu Tseng, under a Deed ("the Tseng Deed") entered into with Mr Garrett and his wife in their capacity as trustees of the Andrew Garrett Family Trust. By orders of the Supreme Court made on 26 July 2005 and 19 August 2005, TWEV was granted leave to pay the amounts due under Clause 9 into the Supreme Court until the determination of the proceeding or further order. 46 On 16 December 2005, orders were made in the Supreme Court proceeding cross-vesting the proceeding to the South Australian Registry of the Federal Court of Australia and directing that future quarterly payments by TWEV due under Clause 9 were to be paid into the Federal Court. 47 On 27 March 2009, Lander J in the cross-vested proceeding (SAD 5 of 2006), made orders by consent that out of the monies held in Court, $112,500 was to be paid to the Australian Taxation Office, $100,000 was to be paid to the Commercial & General Law Trust Account on account of Mr Garrett in his capacity as trustee of the Andrew Garrett Family Trust No. 3, and the balance was to be paid to Mr Macks in his capacity as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Mr Garrett. The Court further ordered TWEV to pay future amounts payable pursuant to Clause 9 to the Lipman Karas Trust Account (being the trust account of a South Australia law firm). 48 Mr Ryan exhibited a table to his affidavit which he believed accurately summarised the documents evidencing the payments made under Clause 9 for the quarterly periods from 30 July 2004 to 30 July 2010. The Tseng Deed was also put into evidence. Clause 1 of that deed contained a warranty from Mr Garrett that TWEV had paid the quarterly payments due for the quarters from 1 January 2003 up to 1 April 2004. 49 On 1 May 2014, Mr Garrett filed a proceeding in the Federal Court against TWEV and other related entities. The claims made by Mr Garrett against TWEV included: (a) an allegation that, on the proper construction of Clause 9 of the Deed of Settlement, in addition to the amounts payable by TWEV to the trustees, quarterly payments were also due and payable by TWEV to him personally "in perpetuity" and none of those payments had been made; (b) an allegation that TWEV had breached the terms of Clauses 14 and 15 of the Deed of Settlement in relation to the exercise by Mr Garrett of certain option rights; (c) an allegation that Clause 17.3 of the Deed of Settlement operated as an indemnity in Mr Garrett's favour in respect of the 2014 proceedings instituted by him and all other proceedings he had taken against TWEV.
The 2014 Federal Court proceeding 50 This proceeding was the subject of a judgment: Garrett v Make Wine Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1258. Mortimer J held that the proceeding was an abuse of process, falling within the definition of "vexatious proceeding" in s 37AM(1)(a) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ("the FCA"). Mortimer J gave judgment for the respondents and made an order pursuant to s 37AO of the FCA in the following terms: Andrew Morton Garrett is hereby prohibited from: (a) instituting in his own name; or (b) causing others to institute; or (c) being concerned, whether directly or indirectly, in the institution of - any proceedings in any registry of the Federal Court of Australia against Make Wine Pty Ltd, VOK Beverages Pty Ltd, Treasury Wine Estates Vinters Ltd or any related body corporate, employee, agent or advisor of Make Wine Pty Ltd, VOK Beverages Pty Ltd, Treasury Wine Estates Vinters Ltd without the leave of this Court. 51 Significantly, for present purposes, Mortimer J held that Mr Garrett had no standing to bring claims against TWEV based on alleged breaches by TWEV of Clauses 9.2 and 17.3 of the Deed of Settlement by reason that any right to make those claims vested in his trustee in bankruptcy. Her Honour stated at [107]: Mr Garrett's causes of action in relation to alleged breaches of the 2000 Deed, and any interests he had to be paid, or rights he had available for exercise, under that Deed which could have resulted in additional funds being available for creditors vested in his trustee in bankruptcy. Having been divested of that property on bankruptcy, he does not reacquire it after his discharge and is not able to issue proceedings in relation to the 2000 Deed. 52 Mortimer J also held that Mr Garrett's claim to payments under Clause 9 of the Deed of Settlement was Anshun estopped as such a claim could have been, and should have been, agitated in proceeding SAD 5 of 2006. Her Honour further held that the ground of abuse of process was "fatal to all of Mr Garett's claims" in the proceeding, finding that "it is clear that Mr Garrett has engaged in substantial re-litigation of issues, having been unsuccessful to date in obtaining the outcome he desired from other proceedings". At [195] to [201], her Honour said: The impression which is created, attempting to characterise this behaviour as favourably as I can for Mr Garrett, is that he is so firmly persuaded in his own mind that he has not received any "justice" that he simply refuses to accept any outcome, including a judicially imposed outcome, that does not give him what he believes he is entitled to. I consider that Mr Garrett has continued many of those features in the proceeding before me. First, the subject matter of the proceeding is once again the 2000 Deed, which has featured, directly or indirectly, in many previous proceedings brought by Mr Garrett. Likewise, the disputes over ownership of wine labels and trade marks have been raised in other proceedings. There is no doubt that what Mr Garrett seeks to do in this proceeding is to revisit yet again the bargain struck by the 2000 Deed, and his complaints about the performance of that bargain. It should not be overlooked that the 2000 Deed itself was a compromise of proceedings brought by Mr Garrett in No 2244 of 1996 in the Supreme Court of South Australia. He appears never to have accepted the terms of that compromise as binding upon him in any realistic sense. The consequences of the performance (or alleged non-performance) of the parties' obligations under the 2000 Deed have been worked out in many of the subsequent proceedings brought by Mr Garrett. The interpleader proceedings transferred from the Victorian Supreme Court to the South Australian Registry of the Federal Court and which became SAD 5 of 2006 concerned payments under the 2000 Deed. The interpleader proceeding was settled by consent orders, to which Mr Garrett was a party. Notwithstanding that fact, Mr Garrett has this year sought to reopen those proceedings. In the Victorian Registry, Mr Garrett now has proceedings which seek directly to interfere with the consent orders made by Lander J in Mr Garrett's proceeding against Mr Macks, in circumstances where Mr Garrett was party to a deed of settlement with Mr Macks (and others) in respect of that proceeding (VID 304 of 2014). The proceedings before Layton J in Mildara Blass [2009] SASC 19 concerned, amongst other things, the first attempt by Mr Garrett to reopen the proceedings in No 2244 of 1996, which had resulted in the 2000 Deed. The basis on which Mr Garrett sought to reopen those proceedings was first, that the 2000 Deed had been breached and, second, that he had terminated it. He relied on several affidavits sworn by him and, as Layton J noted at [62] of her Honour's judgment, six volumes of annexures. I note of course (as Layton J did at [64] in the context of the application before her), that the second allegation made by Mr Garrett (of termination) is wholly inconsistent with his subsequent conduct in seeking to issue proceedings to enforce payments made under the 2000 Deed, including in this proceeding. The extract of Layton J's judgment at [119] above clearly indicates that Mr Garrett's determination to re-agitate and re-litigate many aspects of the 2000 Deed and its consequences for him (which have included his bankruptcy, the loss of assets and the sale of properties with which he was connected directly or indirectly) is not, and never has been, accompanied by any substantive legal arguments which can be said to have sufficient force for his numerous proceedings to survive even preliminary examination by a variety of judges in a variety of courts. The subject matter of these proceedings - the 2000 Deed and its consequences - has been directly or indirectly the subject now of several proceedings brought by Mr Garrett. Since Mr Garrett seems incapable of exercising any self-discipline in relation to drawing a line under his wholly unsuccessful attempts to litigate his complaints about the 2000 Deed and its consequences, the Court must take action itself to prevent any further abuse of its processes by Mr Garrett. 53 Mr Garrett's application for leave to appeal that decision was refused: Garrett v Make Wine Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 593. Relevantly, for present purposes, Beach J held that Mortimer J had been correct to hold that, by reason of his bankruptcy, Mr Garrett had no standing to bring the claims for alleged breaches of Clause 9 and Clause 17.3 of the Deed of Settlement. His Honour also held that each of the other proposed appeal grounds raised by Mr Garrett were misconceived, untenable or too nebulous to be meaningful.
The 2014 statutory demands 54 As part of the chronology of events, it is also relevant that during the period from 18 June 2014 to 29 July 2014, Mr Garrett (and related parties) had served statutory demands on each of TWE and TWEV in respect of alleged debts said to arise under the Deed of Settlement. The creditor's demands were for the following amounts: (a) $56,8326,123.74 (sic) for "the amount of money payable" under Clauses 9.1(b), 9.3 and 17.3; (b) $56,836,123.74 for "the amount of money payable" under Clauses 9.1(b), 9.3 and 17.3; (c) $8,250,000 "for the amount of money payable to [Mr Garrett]"; (d) $8,250,000 for "the amount of money payable" under Clauses 9.2(b) and 9.3; (e) $112,500 for "the amount of money payable" under Clause 17.3 as a loss subject to indemnity pursuant to orders of the Federal Court on 27 March 2009 (two copies of this notice were served); (f) $219,269.60 for "the amount of money payable" under Clause 17.3 to reimburse expenses in SAD 5 of 2006 (two copies of this notice were served); (g) $5,300,000 for "the amount of money payable" under Clause 17.3; (h) $150,000 for "the amount of money payable" under Clauses 9.2(b) and 9.3 as at 1 July 2014; and (i) $677,000 "for the amount of money payable" under Clause 17.3 "pursuant to demands for payment made on 5 July 2014 for $347,000 and on 6 July 2014 for $330,000". 55 During a case management conference held on 9 July 2014 in the 2014 proceedings, Mr Garrett withdrew all but five of the statutory demands served by him. The withdrawals were without prejudice to any rights Mr Garrett may have after the determination of the 2014 proceeding to serve similar statutory demands on TWE and TWEV. TWE and TWEV subsequently commenced five separate proceedings to have the remaining statutory demands set aside. At a case management conference before a Registrar of the Court on 1 August 2014, Mr Garrett provided an undertaking to the Court that he would withdraw the remaining five statutory demands upon provision of material from TWEV demonstrating solvency. Such material was provided to Mr Garrett and on 5 August 2014, orders by consent were made for those five statutory demands to be set aside.
consideration 56 The first issue for consideration is whether the statutory demands the subject of the current proceedings were served by Mr Garrett in contravention of s 37AQ(1) of the FCA. Section 37AQ relevantly provides: (1) If the Court makes a vexatious proceedings order prohibiting a person from instituting proceedings, or proceedings of a particular type, in the Court: (a) the person must not institute proceedings, or proceedings of that type, in the Court without the leave of the Court under section 37AT; and (b) another person must not, acting in concert with the person, institute proceedings, or proceedings of that type, in the Court without the leave of the Court under section 37AT. (2) If a proceeding is instituted in contravention of subsection (1), the proceeding is stayed. 57 The word "proceeding" is defined by s 37AM of the FCA Act to have the meaning in s 4 of the FCA Act as follows: proceeding means a proceeding in a court, whether between parties or not, and includes an incidental proceeding in the course of, or in connexion with, a proceeding, and also includes an appeal. Example: Discovery is an example of an incidental proceeding. 58 The word "institute" is defined in s 37AM of the FCA Act and includes relevantly: … for civil proceedings - the taking of a step or the making of an application that may be necessary before proceedings can be started against a party. 59 TWEV submitted that the service of the statutory demands constituted the institution of a proceeding within the meaning of s 37AQ because the purpose of a statutory demand is to facilitate proof of a company's inability to pay its debts (see s 459C(2)(a) of the Act) and thus, it was said, the service of the statutory demands was the taking of a step that may be necessary before commencing wind up proceedings. I am not aware of any reported decision on point and none was cited to me. However, I am assisted by HWY Rent Pty Ltd v HWY Rentals (in liq) (No 2) [2014] FCA 449, in which Perry J held that a request to issue a bankruptcy notice under s 41(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ("the Bankruptcy Act") constitutes the taking of a step necessary before proceedings in a court may be started against a debtor by way of a creditor's petition. 60 I have reached the view that the service of a statutory demand can properly be regarded as the institution of proceedings within the meaning of s 37AQ. The legal effect of a statutory demand is to set up a presumption of insolvency of the company in winding up proceedings of the company if the company has failed to comply with a statutory demand within the three months ending on the day when the application for winding up was made. By force of s 459C(2)(a) of the Act, the Court must presume in winding up proceedings that a company is insolvent if the company is taken to fail to comply with the demand. The company is taken to fail to comply with the demand if the company does not, within a strict 21 day period after service of the demand, either pay or compound the debt, or initiate court proceedings to set the demand aside: s 459F of the Act. As the presumption of insolvency arises by force of statute for the purposes of a wind up application, it can therefore be said, in my view, that the service of a statutory demand is the taking of a step that may be necessary before wind up proceedings can be instituted against the company. 61 The consequence is that the statutory demands were served by Mr Garrett in contravention of s 37AQ(1) and are stayed by operation of s 37AQ(2). It follows that the statutory demands could not be relied upon by Mr Garrett for the purpose of commencing wind up proceedings against TWEV. In any event, the period for compliance with those statutory demand has not yet ended by reason of TWEV's applications under s 459G for orders setting aside the demands: s 459F. 62 For the following reasons the statutory demands should all be set aside. 63 First, as to the statutory demands that are based upon Mr Garrett's construction of Clause 9.2 (see VID 159 and 164 of 2015), a genuine dispute will exist if there are plausible competing constructions of that clause. TWEV argued that a separate payment is not due to Mr Garrett personally under Clause 9.2. It was argued that Clause 9, on its proper construction, only obliged it to make the quarterly payments prescribed in Clause 9.1(b) for the term of the agreement: that is, for ten years, not "in perpetuity". Such a construction is plausible, given that Clause 9.1(b) is "subject to Clause 9.2". It is open to construe Clause 9.2, when read with Clause 9.1(b), as prescribing the minimum and maximum amounts payable by TWEV pursuant to clause 9.1(b) each quarter for the period 1 July 2000 to 1 July 2010. Such a construction is tenable. It is unnecessary to reach any final conclusion on the proper construction as it is sufficient that there is a reasonable argument to the contrary of the construction that Mr Garrett advanced. 64 Secondly, I am also satisfied that a genuine dispute exists about the proper construction of Clause 17.3 upon which the "debts" in the statutory demands that are the subject of VID 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 165 and 166 are founded. On TWEV's construction, the clause only operates to indemnify Mr Garrett from claims made by third parties against him. That construction is open simply on the wording of the clause. Furthermore, read as a whole, the clause limits the indemnity to liabilities "arising … out of the registration or use by" TWEV of certain trademarks "or acts or omissions" of TWEV "in relation thereto". There is in my view clearly a dispute as to whether the indemnity operates to entitle him to recover from TWEV the amounts claimed in those statutory demands. 65 Thirdly, there is the further and insurmountable difficulty that any claim made under Clause 17.3 is not a "debt" which can properly be made the subject of a statutory demand. Contingent or prospective liabilities and unliquidated claims for damages cannot be the subject of a statutory demand: First Line Distribution Pty Ltd v Whiley (1995) 18 ACSR 185; Re Elgar Heights Pty Ltd (No 1) [1985] VR 657. 66 Fourthly, a further insurmountable difficulty for Mr Garrett is that if the debt claims exist, they were all claims that had vested in the trustee in bankruptcy: Garrett v Make Wine Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1258 [100]-[107]; Garrett v Make Wine Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 593 at [44]. 67 Mr Garrett argued that s 129AA of the Bankruptcy Act operated to revest in him rights in respect of the alleged breaches. For the reasons given by Beach J in Garrett v Make Wine at [48]-[50], s 129AA does not assist him: First, on the applicant's own submissions, if s 129AA of the Act operated to revest in him rights in respect of breaches of cll 9.2 and 17.3 of the 2000 Deed, such revestment would not occur until 22 April 2015 (see [10.13.2.8] of the applicant's submissions before me). Consequently, at the time the applicant commenced the proceeding before her Honour, at the time of the hearing before her on 5 August 2014 and at the time her Honour gave judgment in the proceeding on 21 November 2014, the relevant rights had not revested in the applicant. He did not then have standing. But now that we are beyond 22 April 2015, it is appropriate to address the following further arguments that dispose of the point other than on the temporal aspect. Second, the applicant has not even now established that s 129AA of the Act applies to the breaches of cll 9.2 and 17.3 of the 2000 Deed. He has not established that those rights were disclosed in his statement of affairs or were after acquired property which were disclosed in writing to his trustee within 14 days after he became aware that the property devolved on, or was acquired by, him. Third, the applicant did not rely on s 129AA in the hearing before her Honour or refer to s 129AA in the context of a potential later trigger. Further, and as a consequence, he did not adduce evidence at the hearing that those rights were relevantly disclosed in his statement of affairs or were after acquired property which were disclosed in writing to his trustee within 14 days after he became aware that the property devolved on, or was acquired by, him. The applicant only made a more general and untenable point to her Honour that as he had been discharged from his bankruptcy, every asset now revested in himself. I adopt and agree with His Honour's reasons. 68 Fifthly, further compounding the difficulty is that even if s 129AA operated as Mr Garrett claimed, all of the statutory demands were served before 22 April 2015 when such rights had not revested in him. That is fatal to his claim of standing. 69 Sixthly, Mr Garrett's reliance on the document described as a Deed of Settlement and Release made on 4 May 2015 is misconceived. That deed could not cure his lack of standing, by reason that such rights as he had against TWEV vested in the trustee in bankruptcy, and s 129AA of the Bankruptcy Act has no operation. 70 Seventhly, the description of the debt in each of the statutory demands is so vague as to the basis and calculation of the debt that they should be set aside under s 459J(1)(a). 71 Additionally to all these reasons, it is reasonable to infer that Mr Garrett served these statutory demands for an improper purpose. Mr Garrett deposed in relation to each of the statutory demands that no allegation of dispute had been made to him and that he believed there was no genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debt. That deposition cannot be accepted as correct in light of the history of litigation between the parties over numerous years and most recently in 2014. The very basis upon which TWEV sought summary judgment against him in the 2014 proceedings was that TWEV disputed any liability to him as alleged under Clause 9.2 or Clause 17.3: Garrett v Make Wine Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1258. Mortimer J held that the proceeding was an abuse of process and a vexatious proceeding. Mr Garrett was clearly on notice when he served the demands that there is a dispute between him and TWEV as to whether any amount is due to him under Clause 9.2 or Clause 17.3. In the circumstances, it is untenable that Mr Garrett genuinely believed that there was no dispute when he served the statutory demands.
Injunction 72 Finally, TWEV seeks an injunction under s 1324 of the Act restraining Mr Garrett from serving any more statutory demands based upon claimed breaches or entitlements under the Deed of Settlement. Section 1324 empowers the Court to grant injunctions where a person has engaged, is engaging or proposing to engage in conduct that constitutes or would constitute relevantly the contravention of the Act or attempting to contravene the Act. It was submitted that there was a breach of s 459E in the circumstances where Mr Garrett is aware that TWEV disputes any further liability to him. I do not accept that the power of the Court under s 1324 is enlivened. The demands were not a breach of the Act in the relevant sense but, rather, were ineffective to achieve their statutory purpose. Accordingly, the application for an injunction is refused.
conclusion 73 I have not dealt with all the arguments advanced by both parties as it is unnecessary to do so in view of my conclusion that the statutory demands should be set aside for the reasons given. An order will be made setting aside the statutory demands. I certify that the preceding seventy-three (73) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Davies.
Treasury Wine Estates Vintners Ltd
Garrett
[2009] SASC 19
(1994) 51 FCR 446
(1997) 76 FCR 452