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

  • The illegal phoenixing regime

    The illegal phoenixing regime

    The Treasury Laws Amendment (Combating Illegal Phoenixing) Act 2020 (Cth) (Amending Act) came into force on 18 February 2020 and was designed to prevent illegal phoenixing activity.  The Amending Act introduced reforms such as creditor-defeating disposition provisions to combat phoenixing activity.  Additional provisions amending the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) were aimed to encourage accountability by…

    Read more …

  • Unfair contract terms – automatic renewal clauses explained

    Unfair contract terms – automatic renewal clauses explained

    9 November 2023 was a crucial date for Australian businesses because from that date significant penalties can now be imposed on businesses found to have unfair contract terms (UCT) in their contracts.  The Federal Government had introduced significant changes to laws relating to UCT on 10 November 2022.

    Read more …

  • Australian legislation tackles loot boxes in video games

    Australian legislation tackles loot boxes in video games

    The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment (Loot Boxes) Bill 2022 (Bill)  has been tabled in the House of Representatives on the 28 November 2022.  The private member’s Bill acts in response to growing support for the regulation of features and elements within video games which appear to simulate gambling.

    Read more …

  • Consumer law updates business owners should know

    Consumer law updates business owners should know

    The Treasury Laws Amendment (More Competition, Better Prices) Act 2022 (Cth) (Act) amends various pieces of legislation to provide stronger competition and consumer protections.  In particular, the Act bolsters the penalties applicable for offences relating to unfair practices and unfair contract terms under as contained within the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) (CCA) and…

    Read more …

  • Is a proposed settlement fair and reasonable in the Federal Court?

    Is a proposed settlement fair and reasonable in the Federal Court?

    Class action lawsuits commonly resolve in a settlement between the members of a class and the respondents to a claim.  However, there are strict requirements to proposed settlements, including that they are ‘fair and reasonable’, which will be subject to judicial oversight.

    Read more …

  • Incentivising distributors – key contractual considerations

    Incentivising distributors – key contractual considerations

    Incentivising distributors is an effective way to increase sales, reduce inventory and accelerate adoption of new products. This article explores various methods, from incentive programs to vacations and gamification, plus advice on measuring performance and accountability.

    Read more …

  • Federal Court class actions – requirements explained

    Federal Court class actions – requirements explained

    This article provides an overview of the mechanics behind a Class Action in the Federal Court of Australia. It covers the requirements to commence the action, the ability for members to opt out, and the limits on Class Actions, giving readers a comprehensive understanding of the process and obligations.

    Read more …

  • Registration of .au domain names – what does this mean for businesses?

    Registration of .au domain names – what does this mean for businesses?

    From 24 March 2022, any persons with a verified connection to Australia will be able to apply for a domain name ending in .au, also known as a direct name or second level name (Direct Name).  Any business can apply for a Direct Name as long as they meet the eligibility criteria under the .au…

    Read more …

  • Use of a competitors trade marks for comparative advertising

    Use of a competitors trade marks for comparative advertising

    Comparative advertising can be a powerful tool, but it must be done within the bounds of the law. Learn more about the legal implications of comparative advertising in Australia, including the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty Ltd v Reckitt Benckiser (Australia) Pty Limited (No 2) [2018] FCA 1.

    Read more …


Posted

in

,
Send this to a friend