Australian Investment Co (Holdings) Ltd, Re [2001] QSC 435

State Reporting Bureau Transcript of Proceedings Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. REVISED COPIES ISSUED State Reporting Bureau SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION DOUGLAS J No 8536 of 2001 Date /61 !II 6 I IN THE MATTER OF THE CORPORATIONS LAW IN THE MATTER OF AUSTRALIAN INVESTMENT CORP (HOLDINGS) LTD (ACN 082. 183 800) BRISBANE .. DATE 01/11/2001 JUDGMENT "' Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, a. 4000 Telephone: (07) 3247 4360 1 Fax: (07) 3247 5532 -- 1 of 3 -- 01112001 Tl/BCS M/T 1/2001 (Douglas J) HIS HONOUR: This application involves a web of companies and shareholding interests involving two companies in particular: Australian Investment Corp (Holdings) Ltd (ACN 082 183 800) and Mark Way Holdings Pty Ltd (ACN 089 931 788) . Mark Way Holdings issued a statutory demand in the sum of $18,108.60 being for unpaid rental of premises owned by Mark Way. The application is one to set aside that statutory demand. Upon the hearing, it became apparent that at least $8939.05 is owed by Australian Investment Corp (Holdings) Ltd to Mark Way. On the other hand, there is a claim by that company that there was an agreement for a lease of the premises owned by Mark Way and occupied by the applicant, such agreement for lease being for a period of five years, the lease being one which was to be registered. I have some doubts about whether or not in fact there was a concluded agreement for lease. Indeed, Mr Sheers deposes to the fact that there was not any agreement. However, the evidence reveals that the claim is at least colourable and it is not my job today to determine the likely result of it . The interest payments on the first mortgage in respect of the property owned by Mark Way have been paid to the mortgagee. Roughly, those interest payments represent the amount of the rent which was agreed to be paid between the two companies. 2 JUDGMENT 1 10 20 30 40 . 50 60 -- 2 of 3 -- 01112001 Tl/BCS M/T 1/2001 (Douglas J) As I said, I have some doubts about the specific performance claim and it appears to me, in any event, that these 1 companies are likely to in one way or another be wound up because of the intricacies of the shareholdings between them 10 and the apparent mistrust or distrust between some of the leading parties. HIS HONOUR: The matter is best resolved, I think, by ordering that the applicant pay to the respondent the sum of $8939.05 within 14 days and that upon that payment being made, the statutory demand be set aside. I so order. I order that the affidavit of the solicitor for the respondent be sufficient evidence of such payment. I order that the applicant commence proceedings for specific performance and/or damages in respect of the alleged agreement for lease within 14 days of today. HIS HONOUR: I order that costs be reserved on the basis that they are best worked out when and if that action is concluded and if not instituted by argument in front of me. In other words, if you do not pursue it, you can come back. 3 JUDGMENT 20 30 40 . 50 60 -- 3 of 3 --