Corporate Guarantee Under Family Pressure: Can a Statutory Demand Be Set Aside When Enforcement of the Guarantee May Be Unconscionable?

Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Supreme Court of New South Wales, [2025] NSWSC 817, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information

Court of Hearing: Supreme Court of New South Wales, Equity Division, Corporations List

Presiding Judge: Brereton J

Cause of Action: Application to set aside a creditor’s statutory demand under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459G, relying on s 459H and s 459J

Judgment Date: 24 July 2025

Core Keywords:

Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Statutory demand
Keyword 3: Genuine dispute
Keyword 4: Corporate guarantee
Keyword 5: Unconscionable enforcement
Keyword 6: Garcia principle beyond spouses

Background

A lender advanced a substantial loan to a corporate borrower. Over time, the loan documentation was amended, and a separate company joined the arrangements as a guarantor. The loan later fell into arrears. After part of the security was sold and some money was applied to reduce the debt, the lender turned to the guarantor and demanded payment. When payment was not made, the lender served a statutory demand on the guarantor company.

The guarantor did not accept that the alleged debt was straightforward. It asserted that its participation as guarantor arose from relational pressure within a close family connection, that its directors did not understand the legal consequences of what they signed, and that the circumstances of its signing meant the guarantee should not be enforced in the way the lender asserted. The dispute then moved quickly into the Corporations Act statutory demand regime, where the Court’s task is not to finally decide the debt, but to decide whether the demand can stand as a shortcut to insolvency consequences.

Core Disputes and Claims

Legal focus question the Court was required to determine:

1. Whether there was a genuine dispute about the existence of the debt claimed in the statutory demand, within the meaning of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459H.

2. Whether there was some other reason the demand should be set aside, including alleged abuse of process, within the meaning of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459J.

Relief sought:

Applicant company (the company served with the demand): Orders setting aside the statutory demand.

Respondent creditor (the person who served the demand): Orders dismissing the application so the demand remained on foot, enabling the statutory demand pathway to continue.

---

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The story begins as a familiar commercial arrangement that later reveals a human pressure point.

A natural person lender advanced AUD $400,000 to a corporate borrower. The loan documents did not remain static. They were amended multiple times, and through those amendments a separate company became a guarantor. The guarantor’s director was part of a family unit with strong ties to a person involved with the borrowing company.

According to the guarantor’s directors, the relationship dynamics mattered as much as the paperwork. A trusted family member, described as financially sophisticated and influential in the family’s affairs, asked for help. The request was framed as a short-term bridging need, presented as low risk, and coupled with emotional and relational pressure. In real life, this is the moment where many people treat a signature as “helping family” rather than “entering a legally enforceable risk transfer”.

But the legal system treats signatures differently.

As the borrower fell behind, part of the security was sold and a significant sum was paid and allocated across obligations. Disagreement later emerged about what that sale achieved and what remained owing. The lender then demanded payment from the guarantor. The guarantor’s directors said they did not actually see the demand communications because service was effected through nominated addresses and emails that, in practice, were not closely monitored.

When the statutory demand arrived, the guarantor was forced into the strict statutory timeframe. It did what many companies do in this position: it applied under s 459G to set aside the demand and attempted to show the Court that the debt was not presently suitable for the statutory demand shortcut.

The conflict foreshadowing is clear. A guarantee signed in an environment of trust and pressure becomes, once the loan is stressed, a document with severe consequences. The law then asks a very pointed question: is this dispute real enough that the company should not be pushed towards insolvency consequences without a proper trial?

---

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Affidavit evidence from the director supporting the s 459G application, asserting belief in a genuine dispute about the debt.

2. Narrative evidence about how the guarantee was procured: familial trust, a request made by a trusted relative, assurances of temporary risk, and absence of independent advice or genuine understanding.

3. Assertions about uncertainty and accounting questions:

   • Uncertainty about drawdown and calculation of interest and principal.
   • Belief, based on information from an associated person, that the debt was fully settled following a property sale in March 2024.
   • Uncertainty about whether the creditor pursued the borrower or other guarantors.
4. A solicitor letter sent before the application, repeating the themes:
   • The guarantee was signed under undue influence by the family-linked person.
   • The directors did not understand the implications.
   • The demand figures were not satisfactorily explained.
5. A refined legal characterisation advanced in submissions: even if the affidavit used the language of undue influence, the correct legal frame against the creditor was that enforcement may be unconscionable, drawing on principles associated with Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments

1. Evidence and documents explaining the application of proceeds from the security sale:

   • The sale proceeds were distributed across more than one development loan.
   • A portion reduced the relevant loan principal, but did not extinguish it.
2. Evidence about service of a detailed letter of demand prior to the statutory demand:
   • Sent by express post to the contractual address for service.
   • Also sent by email to the nominated email addresses.
3. Legal submission that the applicant impermissibly expanded its case beyond the affidavit, relying on authority about the need to identify the dispute properly and early.

4. Legal submission that it was neither unconscionable nor an abuse of process to proceed against a guarantor before the borrower, given typical guarantee terms and the underlying common law position.

Core Dispute Points

1. Threshold dispute: Is there a genuine dispute that is real, plausible, and requires investigation, rather than being merely tactical or illusory?

2. Substantive dispute: Can a corporate guarantor, said to be a volunteer and mistaken as to the transaction’s purport and effect, argue that it is unconscionable for a creditor to enforce the guarantee where the creditor did not explain the transaction and did not know an independent person had done so?

3. Accounting dispute: Was the debt fully repaid following the property sale, or was there a balance outstanding consistent with the statutory demand amount?

4. Process dispute: Was the statutory demand an abuse of process because the applicant was solvent, or because the creditor did not first proceed against the borrower, or because the demand did not come to the directors’ actual attention?

---

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

Affidavits are not just “what happened” documents. In statutory demand litigation, they function as the gatekeeper: they must provide sufficiently particularised grounds showing that the asserted dispute objectively exists and is plausibly arguable.

In this case, the applicant’s affidavit language was, on its face, framed around undue influence exerted by a third party, not the creditor. That is a common misstep by self-represented parties and sometimes by parties under time pressure: they describe the emotional reality accurately but do not always align it with the legal element that bites against the opposing party.

The strategic importance is this: a statutory demand application is not a final trial. The Court does not finally decide who is right. But the Court will insist the dispute be articulated with enough clarity to show it is not spurious. The affidavit must therefore do two things at once:

1. Provide an intelligible factual narrative.
2. Connect that narrative to a legally recognisable reason why the debt is disputed.

Here, the Court accepted that, although the affidavit spoke in the language of undue influence, it could reasonably be read as gesturing toward the unconscionability framework: the applicant’s directors described themselves as not understanding the purport and effect, not receiving a benefit, and signing because of trust and pressure. That combination is the type of factual foundation that can support an argument that enforcing the guarantee against the surety would be unconscionable where the creditor did not explain the transaction and did not know an independent person had done so.

Strategic Intent Behind the Court’s Procedural Approach

The Court’s approach reveals a procedural discipline: it refused to permit late or unauthorised supplementary submissions after the hearing, emphasising that litigation fairness requires parties to present their case properly and within leave rules. That discipline sits alongside a more substantive fairness: the Court refused to let the statutory demand procedure become a mechanism that summarily shuts out a genuinely arguable defence to enforcement of the guarantee.

In short, the Court held the parties to procedure, but did not let procedure overwhelm the statutory purpose: a demand should not stand where a genuine dispute exists.

---

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Before the final orders, the critical procedural arrangements were those inherent to statutory demand litigation:

1. The applicant commenced proceedings within the statutory timeframe under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459G.

2. The application was supported by affidavit evidence.

3. The matter proceeded to hearing, where the parties filed written submissions and made oral submissions.

4. The Court managed submissions strictly, declining to consider additional submissions filed without leave after oral argument concluded.

These steps matter because statutory demand litigation is designed to be quick. The Court’s supervision ensures speed does not become unfairness.

---

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The hearing was a collision of two litigation styles:

• The applicant’s case was fact-heavy and relationship-driven: it emphasised trust, pressure, lack of understanding, and absence of benefit.
• The respondent’s case was document-heavy and mechanism-driven: it relied on loan amendments, service provisions, distribution of sale proceeds, and orthodox guarantee principles.

There was no full cross-examination in the way a final trial would unfold. Instead, the “showdown” occurred through competing affidavit narratives tested against documentary anchors and the legal threshold for a genuine dispute.

The Court’s focus was not to decide whether the applicant’s directors were ultimately correct about unconscionability. The focus was whether the applicant’s contention had enough plausibility, on sufficiently particularised grounds, to warrant investigation in ordinary proceedings rather than being extinguished via insolvency process pressure.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The decisive confrontation occurred in three layers.

Layer 1: The legal threshold for genuine dispute.

The Court emphasised the established test: it is not a merits trial; it is a threshold inquiry into whether the dispute is real and arguable.

A dispute is genuine if it is not plainly vexatious or frivolous, may have some substance, or involves a plausible contention requiring investigation. Once the company shows that even one issue has a sufficient degree of cogency to be arguable, a finding of genuine dispute must follow and the demand will be set aside.

This was determinative because it framed how the Court treated imperfect affidavit drafting. The applicant did not need to prove unconscionability at this hearing; it needed to show an arguable foundation.

Layer 2: The difference between undue influence by a third party and unconscionability against the creditor.

The applicant said the guarantee was signed due to undue influence by a family-linked person. The respondent answered: even if that happened, it does not directly defeat the creditor’s claim unless the creditor’s enforcement is itself legally impeachable.

Layer 3: The plausibility of extending the Garcia-type unconscionability principle.

The Court accepted that the argument was difficult and unusual because it involved a company surety and a natural person lender, rather than the classic spousal surety setting. But the Court was not persuaded it was unarguable, particularly given commentary and authority indicating the principle is not strictly confined to husband and wife and may extend to other non-commercial relationships of trust and confidence known to the creditor.

Judicial Reasoning: How Facts Drove the Result

The Court determined that:

1. The applicant had advanced a sufficiently arguable basis that enforcement of the guarantee might be unconscionable, in a way that could amount to a genuine dispute about the existence of the debt claimed for statutory demand purposes.

2. Because a genuine dispute existed as to the whole of the debt, the statutory demand must be set aside.

The key logic was that statutory demand procedure is not to be used to shut out an arguable defence that requires proper investigation at trial.

---

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Court made orders that:

1. The statutory demand dated 13 March 2025 was set aside.

2. If either party wished to make submissions on costs, they were required to notify the Associate by a stated deadline, after which directions would be made.

The practical effect is important. The creditor was not declared wrong on the guarantee. Instead, the creditor was required to pursue enforcement in the conventional way, where the unconscionability contention could be tested on full evidence.

---

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis

This case is a vivid example of a boundary principle in corporate insolvency practice: a statutory demand is a powerful tool, but it is not a substitute for a trial where the existence of the debt is genuinely disputable.

It is also a rare window into the migration of equitable concepts into corporate contexts. The Court treated the applicant’s narrative of trust, pressure, lack of understanding, and absence of benefit not as mere sympathy, but as a potential pathway to an established equity-based unconscionability doctrine associated with sureties.

The jurisprudential value lies in three features:

1. Clarifying the threshold nature of genuine dispute and resisting merits determination at the demand stage.

2. Demonstrating that imperfect affidavit language may still suffice if it fairly signals an arguable legal path.

3. Treating the extension of Garcia-type unconscionability beyond spouses as at least arguable on a preliminary basis, where the relational dynamics are non-commercial and known to the creditor.

Judgment Points

1. The statutory demand regime is not a debt collection shortcut where a real defence requires investigation.
   The Court held that once a sufficiently cogent arguable issue is shown, the demand must be set aside. This protects companies from being forced into insolvency consequences while a real legal defence remains unresolved.

2. A third party’s pressure does not automatically defeat a creditor’s rights, but it can illuminate unconscionability in enforcement.
   The applicant’s affidavit emphasised third-party influence. The Court reframed the question: the relevant issue against the creditor is whether enforcing the guarantee against a mistaken volunteer, without explanation and without independent advice known to have been given, may be unconscionable.

3. Corporate form does not automatically immunise a creditor from unconscionability arguments where the transaction is relational rather than commercial.
   The Court recognised the argument was unusual, but treated it as potentially viable where the relationship between the surety and debtor had a non-commercial element and the creditor might have been on notice.

4. Standard form “independent legal advice” clauses assist but do not conclusively defeat a surety’s case.
   The Court accepted that such clauses may serve an evidentiary function but are not determinative where the surety plausibly alleges lack of understanding of purport and effect.

5. Documentary service in accordance with contractual notice provisions is generally enough at the statutory demand stage.
   The applicant’s directors said they did not actually see the demand emails and posted letter. The Court treated service as effective under the contract and refused to characterise the statutory demand as abusive merely because the correspondence did not reach actual attention.

6. Proceeding against the guarantor before the borrower is orthodox and generally not an abuse of process.
   The Court treated the lender’s election as consistent with typical guarantee drafting and common law principle, and rejected the framing of unconscionability or abuse based solely on the order in which enforcement steps were taken.

Legal Basis

The Court’s reasoning was anchored in:

• Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459G: jurisdiction and procedure for applying to set aside a statutory demand within time.

• Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459H: mandatory setting aside where there is a genuine dispute about the existence of the debt.

• Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459J: discretionary setting aside for some other reason, including abuse of process arguments.

• Authority on genuine dispute threshold, including Eyota Pty Ltd v Hanave Pty Ltd and the appellate formulation in Ligon 158 Pty Ltd v Huber.

• Equitable principle associated with suretyship and unconscionability, including Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd, treated as capable of extension to non-commercial relationships beyond spouses where trust and confidence exist and the creditor has not explained the transaction.

Evidence Chain

Victory point 1: Establishing an arguable unconscionability pathway despite imperfect affidavit drafting

• Evidence: affidavit described lack of understanding, relational pressure, and absence of benefit.
• Legal linkage: these facts align with the “mistaken volunteer” concern in suretyship unconscionability.
• Outcome: the Court treated the unconscionability contention as fairly notified and arguable, satisfying the genuine dispute threshold.

Victory point 2: Maintaining plausibility where credibility was not definitively impeached

• Evidence: the respondent pointed to messages suggesting the director might not be as naive as claimed, and to the timeline inconsistency of “short-term loan” compared to later amendments.
• Court response: at demand stage, the Court could not conclude the applicant’s evidence was false; it remained plausible enough to warrant investigation.

Victory point 3: Neutralising accounting-based dispute where documents explained the sale proceeds distribution

• Evidence: respondent’s documents explained that proceeds were allocated across loans, with only part applied to reduce the relevant principal.
• Court response: the Court rejected the “fully repaid” contention as not credible, but that did not matter because the unconscionability ground alone sufficed for genuine dispute.

Victory point 4: Rejecting abuse of process as an alternative pathway

• Evidence: contractual notice provisions, evidence of pre-demand letter and emails, guarantee terms permitting action against guarantor without suing borrower first.
• Court response: no abuse of process was established; yet again, the existence of a genuine dispute made this unnecessary to decide in the applicant’s favour.

Victory point 5: Protecting the proper forum for determining the defence

• Evidence: the case presented only a glimpse of the full factual matrix; the creditor gave limited evidence about how the guarantee came to be executed.
• Court response: unconscionability cases are fact-dependent; the conventional enforcement proceeding is the proper arena to test the defence, not insolvency shortcut procedure.

Judicial Original Quotation

The ratio-driving idea was the Court’s acceptance that the unconscionability contention was arguable and therefore constituted a genuine dispute requiring the demand to be set aside.

Cases concerning alleged unconscionable conduct are often highly fact dependent. Based on the facts now before me, which provide really only a glimpse of the full factual underpinnings, I conclude that the plaintiff’s contentions are not so devoid of substance that no further investigation is warranted. The plaintiff has shown that there is an issue that has a sufficient degree of cogency to be arguable, with the consequence that a finding of genuine dispute about the whole of the debt must follow and that the statutory demand must be set aside.

This was determinative because it draws the exact line the statutory demand regime is built on: if the dispute needs investigation, insolvency pressure cannot be used as the substitute for that investigation.

A second central passage, used to frame the unconscionability doctrine:

To enforce the transaction against a mistaken volunteer when the creditor, the party that seeks to take the benefit of the transaction, has not itself explained the transaction, and does not know that a third party has done so, would be unconscionable.

This mattered because it converted the applicant’s lived reality, trust and pressure within a relationship, into a legally recognisable question about what the creditor did or did not do by way of explanation and assurance of understanding.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure

The respondent creditor did not “lose” the guarantee. The respondent lost the ability to use a statutory demand as the enforcement mechanism at this stage. The failure was strategic and forensic:

1. Insufficient evidentiary answer to the relational and knowledge features.
   The respondent gave limited evidence about what inquiries were made, what explanations were provided, and what was known about the relationship between the parties connected to the transaction. In unconscionability disputes, absence of evidence can leave open the inference that needs investigation.

2. Over-reliance on formal documentation to defeat a fact-dependent equity argument at a threshold hearing.
   Standard advice clauses and corporate form arguments may be powerful at trial. At the genuine dispute stage, the applicant needed only an arguable path. The respondent’s strategy did not eliminate plausibility.

3. The statutory demand forum was structurally unfavourable for resolving the defence.
   Even strong documentary points, such as the accounting distribution, do not dispose of an equity-based enforcement defence where the Court accepts the defence as arguable and fact-dependent.

---

Implications

1. If you sign a guarantee as a favour, the law may still treat it as a serious risk transfer, and the consequences can arrive suddenly through statutory demand pressure. The safest protection is early understanding and independent advice, not later explanations.

2. When a dispute is real and needs investigation, the Court tends to resist insolvency shortcuts. This does not mean you will ultimately win, but it can mean you earn the right to have the real dispute decided properly.

3. Family and trust can be evidence. In some contexts, relational pressure and lack of understanding are not just personal narratives; they can become the factual engine for an unconscionability argument.

4. Documents matter, but so does the story of how the documents were signed. A clause stating advice was available does not automatically prove understanding, especially if the surrounding facts plausibly show otherwise.

5. Litigation strategy is about the right forum. A statutory demand fight is about threshold plausibility, not final truth. If you want final truth, you must prepare for the conventional proceedings where evidence will be tested fully.

---

Q&A Session

1. Does setting aside a statutory demand mean the guarantor does not owe the money?
   No. Setting aside a demand means the Court determined there is a genuine dispute requiring investigation. The creditor may still sue on the guarantee in ordinary proceedings and may still succeed depending on the evidence.

2. Can a company really argue unconscionability like an individual can?
   It is relatively unusual, but the Court treated it as arguable where the facts suggested the company acted as a volunteer in a relational setting and the defence depended on the creditor’s conduct and knowledge. The ultimate success would depend on detailed evidence tested at trial.

3. If the directors did not read the demand emails, is the demand invalid?
   Not usually. If service is effected according to the contractual notice provisions and statutory requirements, a failure to check email tends not to invalidate service. The safer approach is to ensure addresses for service and email monitoring are controlled and current.

---

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Corporate Insolvency Procedure – Statutory Demand Set-Aside Application Involving Guarantee Enforcement Defence

Judgment Nature Definition: Interlocutory-style Determination Within Statutory Demand Regime, producing final orders on whether the demand stands, but not finally determining the underlying debt dispute

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

This case belongs to category ⑨ Civil Litigation and Dispute Resolution.

Core Test Standards to Self-check, step-by-step, with non-absolute risk language:

1. Limitation and statutory time strictness within the statutory demand regime
   • A company that receives a statutory demand must apply within the strict statutory timeframe under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459G.
   • Failure to apply in time tends to be determinative and can expose the company to a presumption of insolvency.
   • Practical self-check: immediately identify the date and method of service, calculate the deadline conservatively, and file early rather than late.
2. Jurisdiction and proper pathway
   • The Court’s task is not to decide the debt finally, but to decide whether the statutory demand should stand.
   • Practical self-check: distinguish between what must be proven at a threshold hearing and what must be proven at a final trial. Mis-framing the case as a merits trial can cause irrelevant evidence to dominate while the required threshold evidence is missing.
3. Genuine dispute threshold under s 459H
   • You must demonstrate a dispute that is bona fide, sufficiently particularised, and objectively plausible.
   • The burden is not to prove your defence conclusively, but to show at least one issue has enough cogency to be arguable.
   • Practical self-check: identify the single strongest arguable issue, present it with clear facts, and link it to a recognised legal doctrine.
4. Disclosure and evidence discipline
   • The affidavit evidence must be clear enough to give fair notice of the dispute.
   • Expanding the case late can create forensic risk and may be resisted.
   • Practical self-check: draft the supporting affidavit to align facts to legal elements, particularly where the defence depends on equity or unconscionability, which is fact-dependent.
5. Duty of disclosure and documentary readiness
   • Statutory demand fights often turn on documents: loan amendments, notices, allocation of payments, and communications.
   • Practical self-check: gather the full chain of documentation, including the transaction history and payment allocations, because partial recollections tend to be undermined by documentary anchors.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

Where statutory law is inapplicable or insufficient, equity and common law doctrines may provide alternative pathways, depending on the facts.

Promissory or Proprietary Estoppel
– Did a person in a position of influence make a clear and unequivocal representation that the guarantee would be temporary, low risk, or would not be enforced against the company?
– Did the company or its controllers act in reliance, such as signing without advice, allowing service addresses to remain controlled by another, or refraining from taking protective steps?
– Would it be against conscience for the representor, or an entity standing in a legally relevant position, to resile from the representation?
– Practical note: estoppel tends to be highly fact sensitive and may require evidence of the representation’s clarity, reliance, and detriment.

Unjust Enrichment and Constructive Trust
– If the company received no benefit from the transaction, but the borrower or related persons gained advantage, consider whether there is a plausible restitutionary pathway against the party enriched.
– In guarantee contexts, contribution rights and indemnity rights commonly arise against co-guarantors or the principal debtor.
– Practical note: these pathways tend not to defeat the creditor’s contractual claim directly, but can provide a counter-balancing recovery strategy if liability is established.

Procedural Fairness as a litigation control mechanism
– In statutory demand matters, the procedural fairness issue often arises not as a public law doctrine, but as a fairness control in the Court’s case management: whether late material, surprise arguments, or inadequate notice has created prejudice.
– Practical note: strict compliance with leave rules, affidavit sufficiency, and timely service reduces the risk of the Court discounting key material.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

Regular Thresholds:

1. Statutory demand challenge timeframe under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459G is strict and tends to be unforgiving.

2. Genuine dispute threshold: dispute must be real, not illusory, and sufficiently particularised.

3. Abuse of process arguments: merely asserting solvency or complaining the creditor sued a guarantor first tends to be a relatively weak basis unless coupled with additional, compelling circumstances.

Exceptional Channels:

1. Where unconscionability is plausibly raised
   • If evidence suggests the guarantor was a volunteer, did not understand the purport and effect, and the creditor did not explain the transaction or know an independent person did so, the case may cross the arguability threshold even if ultimate success is uncertain.
2. Where documentary service did not reach actual attention
   • Actual non-receipt tends not to invalidate service if contractual and statutory service rules were complied with.
   • However, if the nominated address was effectively controlled by an adverse or conflicted person and that fact can be shown to have created unfairness in a way relevant to the statutory scheme, it may form part of a broader fairness argument in some cases.

Suggestion:

Do not abandon a potential challenge simply because the dispute is complex or fact-heavy. In statutory demand litigation, the key is whether the dispute tends to require investigation. Your task is to present one cogent issue with clear facts and a coherent legal pathway.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

Citation Angle:

It is recommended to cite this case in submissions involving:
– The threshold for a genuine dispute under Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 459H.
– The Court’s willingness to treat an unconscionability defence to guarantee enforcement as arguable at the statutory demand stage.
– The limited scope of abuse of process in statutory demand proceedings where service complied with contractual notice provisions and where the guarantee permits proceeding against a guarantor first.

Citation Method:

As Positive Support:
– When your matter involves a statutory demand and you can show at least one arguable issue requiring investigation, this authority supports the proposition that the demand should be set aside rather than used to summarily determine contested rights.

As a Distinguishing Reference:
– If the opposing party cites this authority, emphasise factual differences such as genuine commercial negotiation, clear independent advice, demonstrable benefit to the guarantor, or explicit creditor explanation of the guarantee’s purport and effect.

Anonymisation Rule:

In your public-facing summaries, use procedural titles such as Applicant company and Respondent creditor, and identify the authority by its medium neutral citation.

---

Conclusion

This judgment shows how the Court guards the boundary between legitimate insolvency procedure and the need for a proper trial where real defences exist. The statutory demand regime is powerful, but it is not a weapon to silence an arguable dispute.

Golden Sentence:

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

---

Disclaimer

This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Supreme Court of New South Wales, [2025] NSWSC 817), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.

The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.