litigation and disputes resolution

Debt collection – done right

HomePrivate: BlogLegal insightsDebt collection – done right

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

Reading Time:

3–5 minutes

There are many effective ways in which you can seek to recover a debt.  That is not the problem. The issue that we often encounter is the presumption that a genuine debt, which is due and payable at law, exists to begin with.  This must, naturally, always be the first question to be asked and unless you can answer it in the affirmative (which is not always easy, and this is precisely the message we are hoping to deliver in this article), you may find that you will be throwing away good money after bad. 

Today, in our complex business environment, there are literally an infinite number of reasons and events that may render a seemingly due and payable debt into one that is not so recoverable, at least not in the conventional way (whereby you issue a short form letter of demand to the debtor which asserts, without explanation, that because “x” number of invoices have been issued to the debtor, that “x” number of dollars must be due and owing to the creditor). This approach may work if you’re dealing with a debt of couple of hundred dollars, (where the debtor will just pay the debt to spare themselves the headache of a dispute) but if you’re dealing with a debt of several thousands of dollars, or tens of thousands of dollars, you can rest assured that the debtor will not make his or her decision to pay so lightly.

We have seen debtors raise a thousand interesting excuses (some legitimate, some not so much) as to why the debt is not due and payable, or they automatically engage legal representatives, in which case you have an entirely different situation on your hands. Even worse, you may have a case where the debtor will seek to frustrate the claim by concealing or destroying documents, records and other physical or intangible property, the subject of your claim, which will make your claim difficult or impossible to prove. Or you may have a debtor that simply disappears of the face of the earth once he or she learns that they are being pursued for a debt, but not before they’ve managed to liquidate their assets, empty their accounts and wire the resources to some offshore account.

Basically, and the moral of the story is this, if you wish to recover a debt, and the debt is for a larger sum of money, you want to ask yourself some of the following questions right at the outset?

Does a debt exist to begin with?

What is the amount of the debt? Is this amount certain or arguable? Why is it due and payable now, and not at some time in the future?

Can I prove that a due and payable debt exists?

Do I have evidence in writing, or was it a handshake agreement?

What are my legal options for recovering the debt?

Do I need to commence Court proceedings? Do I have any effective out of Court options that I can use?

Who is the debtor?

Am I dealing with a company or an individual? What is their trading history, their reputation, their financial health and ability to meet financial commitments? Is the company presently insolvent or in administration? Is the individual a bankrupt or subject to creditor compromise agreements?

Does the debtor have a defence, a set-off or a counterclaim to my claim for payment?

What can the debtor raise as an argument about the quality or fitness for purpose of the goods or services supplied?

What can I do to preserve the debtor’s assets whilst my debt is being recovered?

If you are experiencing difficulty, or uncertainty, in answering some of these questions, and you wish to determine your prospects in recovering your debt, it is always advisable to seek legal advice right at the outset.

Further Information

At Dundas Lawyers, we can undertake a preliminary assessment of your claim, advise on its relative strengths and weaknesses and options you can adopt to advance your claim in the right way.  If you would like further information on the best way to recover your debts, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:


Related insights about commercial law

  • WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    WIJOAV v Goldstone – shareholder oppression in a private equity context

    The recent case of WIJOAV Services Pty Ltd v Goldstone Private Equity Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 622 (WIJOAV v Goldstone) involved a claim of shareholder oppression under section 232 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  The case established that a shareholder in a private equity fund may be oppressed by a co-investor where…

    Read more …

  • Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    Mere puffery vs misleading and deceptive conduct – where is the line?

    In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing.  This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…

    Read more …

  • Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    Federal Court dismisses continuous disclosure claim

    The Federal Court recently dismissed Australia Securities and Investment Commission’s (ASIC) claim in Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Nuix Limited [2026] FCA 490 (ASIC v Nuix) that Nuix Limited breached its obligations under section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Corporations Act).  Nuix Limited (Nuix) successfully contested ASIC’s allegation that it had breached…

    Read more …

  • Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Individual Flexibility Arrangements: an overview

    Modern awards and enterprise agreements set out the minimum terms and conditions of employment for most Australian workers performing different roles.  The Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (Act) provides a mechanism by which an employer and an individual employee may, by agreement, adjust the operation of certain terms in their Award to better suit theircircumstances. …

    Read more …

  • Coercive control and shareholder oppression

    Coercive control and shareholder oppression

    The Criminal Law (Coercive Control and Affirmative Consent) and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2024 (Qld) came into effect on 18 March 2024, by adding chapter 29A to the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (Criminal Code).  This chapter establishes a separate offence of “coercive control’, which stems from domestic violence offences and involves the use of…

    Read more …

  • Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026

    Overview of the Unfair Trading Practices Bill 2026

    On 1 April 2026, the Australian Government introduced the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Unfair Trading Practices) Bill 2026 (Cth) (Bill) to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and Australian Consumer Law (ACL).[1]  If passed, the reform will take effect on 1 July 2027.  The Bill’s amendments aim to protect consumers from manipulative…

    Read more …

  • Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Does your start-up meet the ESIC tax-offset criteria?

    Federal government introduced the Tax Laws Amendment (Tax Incentives for Innovation) Act 2016 (Cth) to provide tax incentives for investors in an eligible early stage innovation company (ESIC), including 20% up-front non-refundable tax offset and capital gains tax (CGT) exemption for all types of investors meeting criteria.

    Read more …

  • White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    White-Anting: An employer’s lawful termination guide

    Employees who use White Anting tactics to deliberately undermine management or disrupt workplace harmony may be summarily dismissed, provided the relevant legal conditions are met and a proper process is followed.  Following our 28 April 2026 article “White Anting: serious misconduct?“, this article provides practical “how to” steps for employers to lawfully dismiss employees who…

    Read more …

  • White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting: serious misconduct?

    White Anting is an Australian term meaning to sabotage, undermine, or destroy an organisation, project, or person from within.  White Anting in the workplace often involves the quiet, insidious undermining of a colleague or superior through gossip, withholding information, exclusion, or spreading doubt.  White Anting  has been recognised by psychologists as a psychosocial hazard and…

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend