31 May 2024
This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision of the NSW Supreme Court, in which the Court had to determine whether an application to set aside a statutory demand, served interstate electronically, was served within the 21-day statutory period.
In the matter of Riverina Solar Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 480, the NSW Supreme Court considered the statutory interpretation of section 600G of the Corporations Act (a section that had allowed for the electronic service of documents under Chapter 5 of the Corporations Act and was repealed in September 2023) and its interaction with the service requirements of the SEP Act governing interstate service of documents.
The facts of the case were as follows:
Her Honour Justice Williams determined that the matter could be resolved by consideration of the following four issues:
Does section 600G of the Corporations Act apply to the service of an application and supporting affidavit under section 459G?
If the answer to (1) is yes, is service in accordance with section 600G sufficient to satisfy section 459G(3) of the Corporations Act in circumstances where section 15(3) of the SEP Act requires service to be effected in accordance with section 9 of the SEP Act?
If the answer to both (1) and (2) is yes, does the sending of an email, attaching relevant documents, to the email address of the solicitor acting on behalf of a creditor, in respect of a statutory demand, amount to leaving those documents at the creditor’s registered office within the meaning of section 9(5) of the SEP Act?
If the answer to (1), (2) and (3) is yes, was service by email effective in this case in circumstances where the prescribed notice under section 16 of the SEP Act was given by email?
Relevantly, section 459G(3) of the Corporations Act provides that an application to set aside a statutory demand is made in accordance with section 459G where copies of the application and supporting affidavit are served on the person who served the demand on the company.
Section 600G of the Corporations Act (which has since been repealed) provided that, with documents served pursuant to Chapter 5, documents “required or permitted to be given to a person” could be given to the recipient by electronic communication or by giving the recipient sufficient information to allow the recipient to access the document electronically.
Section 9 of the SEP Act provides that service of a process, order or document under the SEP Act on a registered body is to be effected by leaving it at, or by posting it to, the body’s registered office. Section 15(3) of the SEP Act provides that service on a company or registered body must be effected in accordance with section 9. Section 16 of the SEP Act provides that service is only effective if copies of prescribed notices are attached to the process served.
In regard to the first issue, her Honour held that section 600G of the Corporations Act did apply to the service of the section 459G application and supporting affidavit in this case. In coming to this conclusion, her Honour considered in detail the decision of Cheeseman J in In the matter of Bioaction Pty Ltd (2022) 402 ALR 542. In that case, which notably did not involve the SEP Act, Cheeseman J held that:
In regard to the second issue, her Honour held that service in accordance with section 600G was not sufficient to satisfy section 459G(3) of the Corporations Act in circumstances where section 15(3) of the SEP Act requires service to be effected in accordance with section 9 of the SEP Act. Her Honour found that the provisions of section 15(3) of the SEP Act are specific and mandatory, and could not be overridden by the ‘general, facultative provisions’ of section 600G of the Corporations Act.
In regard to the third issue, her Honour held that emailing an application and supporting affidavit to a creditor’s solicitors did not constitute leaving such documents at the creditor’s registered office within the meaning of section 9(5) of the SEP Act.
Her Honour noted that a solicitor is a fiduciary who acts on behalf of and in the interests of their client; thus, a solicitor’s email and geographical addresses are not interchangeable with those of the client.
In light of her Honour’s conclusions as to the second and third issues, her Honour determined it was unnecessary to consider the fourth issue.
Her Honour ultimately found that the application to set aside the statutory demand had not been served within the 21-day statutory period because sending the application and supporting affidavit to Tellhow’s solicitors by email did not comply with section 15(3) of the SEP Act and, therefore, did not constitute effective service.
While the decision highlights how issues can arise due to the technicalities of service requirements, it is a reminder to carefully consider service requirements and act promptly in effecting service, and correcting any errors which have been made.
The repeal of section 600G of the Corporations Act means that service of documents under Chapter 5 of the Corporations Act by email will not constitute valid service going forward. Further, when serving documents under the Corporations Act interstate, the provisions of the SEP Act, which expressly excludes the application of sections 109X and 601CX of the Corporations Act, must be complied with.
Authors
Partner
Senior Associate
Associate
Law Graduate
Tags
This publication is introductory in nature. Its content is current at the date of publication. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. You should always obtain legal advice based on your specific circumstances before taking any action relating to matters covered by this publication. Some information may have been obtained from external sources, and we cannot guarantee the accuracy or currency of any such information.
Head of Restructuring, Insolvency and Special Situations