Can You Serve a Statutory Demand by Email in Australia?

Can You Serve a Statutory Demand by Email in Australia?

Yes, as of 15 September 2023, a statutory demand can be legally served by email or other electronic means in Australia under Part 1.2AA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

These changes allow documents—including those under section 459E—to be sent via electronic communication, provided they are reasonably accessible to the recipient and sent to an address the sender believes is current.

This reform modernises corporate legal processes, replacing the now-repealed section 600G, and introduces a technology-neutral regime for serving critical insolvency documents like statutory demands.

Our statutory demand lawyers explain in detail below.

What is a Statutory Demand?

A statutory demand is a formal legal notice issued by a creditor to a company under Part 5.4 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – section 459E, requiring payment of a debt exceeding $4,000.

It is a potent debt recovery mechanism because it bypasses the need for initial court proceedings in situations where there is no genuine dispute that the debt is owing.

If the debtor company fails to respond appropriately, the creditor may rely on the statutory demand to commence winding-up proceedings based on the presumption of insolvency.

Given its serious implications, a statutory demand is not just another reminder but a direct legal challenge to a company’s financial standing.

Read our complete guide here – Statutory Demand – Complete Guide

Further reading can be found here – What is a Creditor’s Statutory Demand?

The 21-Day Deadline: Why Timing is Critical

Once a statutory demand is served, the clock starts ticking.

The debtor company has exactly 21 days from the date of service to either pay the debt, reach an agreement with the creditor, or apply to the court to set the demand aside under section 459G of the Corporations Act. This is shown on the statutory demand, which says at paragraph [3].

3. The creditor requires the company, within the statutory period after service on the company of this demand:

(a)  to pay to the creditor the * amount of the debt/ * total of the amounts of the debts; or

(b)  to secure or compound for the * amount of the debt/ * total of the amounts of the debts, to the creditor’s reasonable satisfaction.

Also in paragraph [5] which says:

5. Section 459G of the Corporations Act   2001 provides that a company served with a demand may apply to a court having jurisdiction under the Corporations Act 2001 for an order setting the demand aside. An application must be made within the statutory period after the demand is served and, within the same period:

(a)  an affidavit supporting the application must be filed with the court; and

(b)  a copy of the application and a copy of the affidavit must be served on the person who served the demand.

This timeframe is inflexible. Failure to act within this period means the company is presumed insolvent under law, allowing the creditor to apply for the company’s liquidation. This is pursuant to section 459C which says:

(2)  The Court must presume that the company is insolvent if, during or after the 3 months ending on the day when the application was made:

 (a)  the company failed (as defined by section 459F) to comply with a statutory demand.

The legal and commercial consequences of missing this deadline can be severe, highlighting the need for immediate attention and decisive action.

Email as a Valid Method of Service

Traditionally, statutory demands were served by post or in person at a company’s registered office. Section 109X states (inter alia):

(1)  For the purposes of any law, a document may be served on a company by:

(a)  leaving it at, or posting it to, the company’s registered office; or

(b)  delivering a copy of the document personally to a director of the company who resides in Australia or in an external Territory.

However, legislative reforms introduced in December 2020 – specifically the inclusion of section 600G – permitted service by electronic communication, including email.

This change was intended to modernise corporate communication practices and streamline insolvency procedures.

Section 600G Repealed in 2023

Section 600G of the Corporations Act 2001 was repealed and replaced on September 15, 2023.

This repeal was part of broader amendments made to the Act through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Act 2023.

Section 37 of schedule 1 simply says:

37 Section 600G … Repeal the section.

The original section 600G, which dealt with electronic communication of documents, was replaced with new provisions in Part 1.2AA of the Act – “Signing and Sending Documents.” This section starts from 110 (directly after 109X, and goes to 110K.

Introduction of Part 1.2AA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Section 600G, which previously governed electronic service of documents in insolvency contexts, was repealed and its function absorbed into the new “technology-neutral” regime in Part 1.2AA of the Act (sections 110–110K).

These new provisions apply to:

1. Signing documents electronically.
2. Sending documents electronically, including those under Chapters 5 to 5D (which cover insolvency, statutory demands, external administration, etc.).

Explanatory Memorandum

Schedule 1, items 29–32 of the Explanatory Memorandum which says:

Section 414 deals with giving notices in external administration processes.

The amendments align the method of serving or giving notices under this section with the new technology-neutral framework in section 110C.

That means documents under section 414 can now be sent:

1. As a hard copy,
2. By email,
3. Or by providing access electronically (e.g. link to SharePoint, Dropbox).

Section 600G is effectively superseded.  The new regime under sections 110C–110F applies to all documents under Chapters 5–5D, which includes:

1. Statutory demands.
2. Notices of meetings during external administration.
3. Applications to set aside demands and/or
4. Liquidator and administrator notices.

Key Point from the Explanatory Memorandum

“Apply the technology neutral sending rules to all insolvency documents.”

This statement confirms the legislative intent: any document that needs to be given or served under Australia’s insolvency laws in the Corporations Act can now be delivered using the modern, flexible methods described in Part 1.2AA.

The practical effect is:

1. Prior to this, section 600G was a specific carve-out just for Chapter 5 documents (mostly related to insolvency).
2. Now, no need to rely on section 600G — it’s been replaced by a broader, consistent rule set under section 110C and its supporting sections.

This is part of a policy shift toward “technology neutrality”, meaning the law doesn’t favor one form (paper, email, link) – what matters is that the document is accessible and sent to an address reasonably believed to be current.

Why Was 600G Replaced?

The legislative intent, per the Explanatory Memorandum, was to:

1. Consolidate and standardise electronic communication rules across the entire Corporations Act.
2. Remove outdated or piecemeal provisions like 600G and create a uniform technology-neutral framework.
3. Clarify the legal validity of using email and electronic links (Dropbox, etc.) for service and document delivery.
4. Address court disputes arising from ambiguities in 600G (e.g. Bioaction v Ogborne).

How Is the New Framework Different (and Broader)?

Under section 110C and related provisions, you can send any document (including under Chapters 5–5D) by:

1. Email,
2. Hard copy,
3. Sending a link to an online document repository.

The law uses a functionally equivalent approach—what matters is that the recipient can access the document, not the medium.

The new framework removes the need to rely on case law to interpret terms like “nominated electronic address”.

Practical Implications for Statutory Demands:

You now rely on sections 110C–110K, not 600G, when serving a statutory demand or setting one aside. However, the sections relevant to serving a statutory demand by email are 110C and 110D.

Courts now assess valid service based on:

1. Whether the email was reasonably sent to an address the sender believed to be current.
2. Whether the document was accessible by the recipient.

Timing rules from sections 105A and 105B still apply.

Verified Key Dates and Changes

Legislation Comparison Table

Note: Part 1.2AA was first introduced by the Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Act 2023. While it commenced in April 2022 for some general provisions, the key change relevant to insolvency documents—including statutory demands—took effect from 15 September 2023, when section 600G was repealed.

How Part 1.2AA Permits Electronic Service

Section 110C of the Corporations Act states (inter alia):

(1)  This Division applies to any document covered by subsection (3) or (4) that is required or permitted under this Act to be sent by a person or entity (the sender) to another person or entity (the recipient).

… Covered documents

(3)  This subsection covers a document that is required or permitted be sent by the sender to the recipient under:

… (c) Chapters 5 to 5D.

This includes documents in Part 5.4, including section 459E, and so includes statutory demands.

Section 110D of the Corporations Act states (inter alia):

(1)  The document may be sent to the recipient:

…  (c) if subsection (2) is satisfied – by sending the document in electronic form by means of an electronic communication; or

(d)  if subsection (2) is satisfied – by sending the recipient sufficient information in electronic form, by means of an electronic communication, to allow the recipient to access the document electronically; or

(e)  if subsection (2) is satisfied and the document is covered by subsection (3) – by making the document readily available in electronic form on a website.

Section 9 defines “electronic communication” as:

(a)  a communication of information in the form of data, text or images by means of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy; or

(b)  a communication of information in the form of speech by means of guided and/or unguided electromagnetic energy, where the speech is processed at its destination by an automated voice recognition system.

So, this all rests of whether subsection 2 is satisfied.  Section 110C(2) states (inter alia):

(2)  This subsection is satisfied if, at the time the document is sent, it is reasonable to expect that the document would be readily accessible so as to be useable for subsequent reference.

Part 1.2AA of the Corporations Act now provides a clear and comprehensive legal basis for serving statutory demands electronically, including via email.

Sections 110C and 110D specifically permit service of documents under Chapters 5 to 5D—explicitly covering statutory demands under section 459E—provided that the method of delivery meets the accessibility standard set out in subsection 110C(2).

This means that electronic service is valid if, at the time of sending, it is reasonable to expect the document will be readily accessible for later use.

There is no requirement for the recipient to actually open or read the email—only that it be retrievable.

Accordingly, creditors may rely on electronic delivery, while debtor companies must adopt diligent monitoring systems to ensure timely receipt and response.

The balance of responsibility has decisively shifted toward vigilance in digital communication.

Deeming Provisions: Sections 105A and 105B

The Explanatory Memorandum and the amended law both confirm that:

“The rules for sending documents apply where the words ‘give’, ‘serve’ or ‘dispatch’ are used…”

These provisions—especially section 110C (on sending documents electronically)—rely on 105A and 105B to determine:

• When a document is deemed to be sent and received (s. 105A), and
• Where a document is deemed to be received (s. 105B).

Section 105A:

1. An electronic communication is taken to be received when it becomes capable of being retrieved by the recipient at their nominated electronic address.
2. This means actual opening or reading of the email is not necessary—receipt is effective once the document is accessible.
3. If no specific time is agreed, the default is when it reaches the recipient’s system and becomes accessible.

Section 105B:

• An electronic communication is taken to be received at:
  • The place of business or registered office linked to the recipient’s electronic address, or
  • The place nominated by the recipient, or
  • Any place the sender reasonably believes is associated with the recipient.

These deeming provisions play a critical role in establishing the timing and location of service.

In effect, they reduce the scope for disputes over whether and when a statutory demand or related application was served correctly, making electronic service both viable and enforceable.

Together, these legislative provisions create a clear and effective framework for serving statutory demands and related documents via email, signalling a significant shift in the practice of corporate insolvency law in Australia.

Professional Tip – get a delivery and read receipt.  Then you can prove that the email we delivered, which is all that is required in the deeming provisions.

In the matter of Stamford Bridge SW6 Pty Ltd v Cox

In Stamford Bridge SW6 Pty Ltd v Cox [2024] NSWSC 486, the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed the plaintiff company’s application to set aside a statutory demand.

The Court found that service of the statutory demand via email to the director’s personal Gmail address was valid, as that address had been used consistently for company correspondence and qualified as a “nominated electronic address” under the Corporations Act.

The application to set aside the demand was not filed and served within the required 21-day period, meaning the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider it further.

The Court relied on recent amendments made by the Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Act 2023 (Cth), particularly regarding electronic communication and service of documents under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Section 600G (now repealed) previously allowed documents (including statutory demands) to be served via electronic communication to a “nominated electronic address”.

The Court confirmed that as of 5 September 2023 (the date of service), section 600G was still in force and therefore validly applied.

Section 600G was repealed effective 15 September 2023, shortly after the events in the case.

Definition of “nominated electronic address” (section 9):

• This definition remains in force and was central to the case.
• The Court interpreted the plaintiff’s use of a Gmail address in formal company dealings as a valid nomination for receiving legal communications.

Sections 105A and 105B (still in force):

These provisions deal with when and where an electronic communication is deemed to be sent and received.

The Court used section 105A(4)-(5) to conclude that the statutory demand was received on 5 September 2023 once it reached the email inbox.

The case hinged on transitional use of now-repealed section 600G and ongoing provisions in sections 9, 105A, and 105B of the Corporations Act. The judge applied these laws to confirm valid service via email before the repeal took effect.

Note – as at the date of publishing this article, there has been no case law in relation to part 1.2AA and service of a statutory demand.

Practical Implications for Creditors and Debtors

The ability to serve statutory demands by email represents a significant shift in corporate debt recovery practices.

While the legislative and judicial endorsement of electronic service improves efficiency, it also introduces new responsibilities and risks for both creditors and debtor companies.

Understanding these implications is crucial for parties involved in the statutory demand process.

Practical Implications for Creditors

Email service offers creditors a faster and more cost-effective way to issue statutory demands, bypassing the delays and expenses of postal or courier delivery. This accelerates debt recovery processes and helps meet strict legal timelines with greater efficiency.

Importantly, service is deemed effective once the email reaches the recipient’s inbox—even if the message is never read. This strengthens the enforcement power of statutory demands and shifts responsibility to debtor companies to maintain vigilant email monitoring.

Lower cost, faster service method

Email service provides a much more efficient alternative to traditional methods such as courier delivery or registered post.

Creditors can now issue statutory demands quickly and inexpensively, eliminating logistical delays and postage costs.

This enables faster initiation of debt recovery processes and streamlines compliance with tight statutory deadlines.

Service can be effective even without recipient reading the document

The demand is considered served once the email is capable of being retrieved, even if the recipient never opens it.

This reinforces the power of statutory demands and shifts the burden of diligence to the recipient.

Practical Implications for Debtors

The shift to allowing statutory demands via email significantly increases the risk that debtor companies may miss critical legal notices. Emails can be easily overlooked or misdirected without robust monitoring systems. Directors must implement strict protocols to review all electronic correspondence, especially from creditors.

If a statutory demand is not addressed within 21 days—whether by payment, negotiation, or court application—a legal presumption of insolvency arises. This enables creditors to initiate winding-up proceedings, with potentially severe financial and reputational impacts.

Delays are costly. Courts consistently reject late applications to set aside demands, regardless of merit. Prompt legal action is therefore essential. With email service now a valid legal method, companies must remain alert, responsive, and legally prepared at all times.

Increased risk of missing demands

For debtor companies, the biggest change is the elevated risk of missing a statutory demand served electronically.

Unlike physical mail, emails can be overlooked, misdirected to junk folders, or missed entirely if monitoring systems are lax.

Directors and company officers must implement robust protocols for reviewing all incoming electronic correspondence, particularly from known creditors or legal representatives.

Presumption of insolvency arises if not set aside or complied with in 21 days

The 21-day deadline to respond to a statutory demand is strict.

Failure to pay the debt, negotiate with the creditor, or apply to set aside the demand within this period results in a presumption of insolvency under the Corporations Act.

This legal presumption can be used by the creditor to apply for the company’s winding up, which can have devastating financial and reputational consequences.

Delays in acting can lead to costly consequences or loss of rights to challenge

Time is of the essence when a statutory demand is received.

Courts have shown zero tolerance for delay, even if the company believes the demand is defective or the debt is disputed.

Late applications to set aside are routinely dismissed, regardless of the underlying merits.

This makes immediate legal advice and action essential upon receiving a demand, especially when it arrives via email and the clock starts ticking immediately.

While email service offers creditors a powerful and convenient enforcement tool, it also demands heightened vigilance and responsiveness from debtor companies.

Both parties must adapt their practices to account for this new legal reality.

Risks and Limitations of Email Service

While serving statutory demands by email offers notable advantages in terms of speed and cost, it is not without its risks.

Creditors must weigh these carefully before relying solely on electronic service—particularly in high-stakes or contested matters.

Burden of Proving Delivery Falls on Sender

When using email, the burden of proof lies with the sender to demonstrate that service was valid.

This involves proving not only that the statutory demand was sent but also that it was capable of being accessed at the nominated electronic address.

Unlike personal delivery or registered post, email service lacks a standardised, universally accepted confirmation mechanism.

If the demand is later disputed, the sender must be prepared to provide evidence such as:

1. Server logs showing time of transmission,
2. Email metadata confirming successful delivery, and
3. Records of prior communication validating the email address used.

Failure to provide adequate evidence can render service ineffective and jeopardise the creditor’s ability to rely on the demand.

Safer to Follow Traditional Service Under Section 109X

Given these risks, creditors should consider using traditional service methods under section 109X, such as delivering the demand to the company’s registered office, when the matter involves a large sum, a potential dispute, or a lack of email correspondence history.

Traditional service:

• Provides clearer evidence of delivery (e.g., delivery receipts, affidavits of service).
• Avoids ambiguity over whether the email address was properly nominated.
• Minimises the chance of procedural challenges that could derail enforcement.

In summary, while email service is a valuable tool under the right conditions, it should be approached with caution.

For critical or contested matters, combining email with traditional methods—or reverting entirely to physical service—may be the more prudent path.

Best Practice Recommendations For Creditors

The shift toward electronic service of statutory demands has created a more efficient framework for corporate debt recovery.

However, both creditors and debtors must adopt specific practices to navigate this new legal environment effectively and mitigate risks.

Below are key recommendations to ensure compliance and avoid costly procedural missteps.

Confirm the Email Address Is Regularly Used

Before serving a statutory demand by email, take reasonable steps to ensure the address is one the debtor company—or its directors—has actively used in prior correspondence.

Debtors may claim they did not receive the email; however, a history of correspondence using that address can rebut this defence.

Evidence such as past emails, correspondence records, or letterheads containing the email address can prove critical if service is later challenged.

Include Clear Instructions in the Statutory Demand

To further reduce ambiguity, statutory demands should clearly specify the preferred address for receiving any response or application to set the demand aside.

This can include both a physical address and an email address.

Providing explicit service details improves transparency and creates a defensible position should the matter proceed to litigation.

It also encourages reciprocal clarity from the debtor when responding.

Get a Delivery & Read Receipt

When serving a statutory demand via email, it is essential to create a reliable evidentiary trail.

This includes enabling delivery and read receipts where possible, and retaining technical records such as email headers, metadata, or server logs that confirm the message was sent and successfully reached the recipient’s mail server.

These records may be critical if service is later challenged, especially in disputes about whether the demand was received or retrievable.

Courts are unlikely to accept mere assertions of service without supporting evidence.

Using reputable email platforms that offer traceable delivery confirmations (or third-party email tracking tools) is highly advisable for high-value or contentious matters.

Best Practice Recommendations For Debtors

With statutory demands now legally valid when served by email, debtor companies must treat email monitoring as a core compliance responsibility. This includes routinely checking all company inboxes (including spam), actively managing email addresses registered with ASIC, and assigning responsible staff to escalate legal correspondence.

Upon receiving a statutory demand, companies have a strict, non-extendable 21-day window to respond. Directors should act immediately—regardless of perceived issues with the debt or service—and seek legal advice without delay.

In the digital age, vigilance and swift legal action are critical to avoiding severe legal and financial consequences.

Set Up Internal Systems to Monitor All Incoming Emails

With statutory demands now legally permitted to be served via email, debtor companies must treat email monitoring as a critical compliance function.

This includes:

1. Regularly checking all inboxes and junk/spam folders,
2. Ensuring company email addresses listed with ASIC are actively monitored, and
3. Delegating responsibility to appropriate personnel for reviewing and escalating potential legal correspondence.

Failure to detect a statutory demand in a timely manner could result in missed deadlines and serious legal consequences.

Act Immediately Upon Receipt of Statutory Demand

Whether a statutory demand is received by email or post, the 21-day response window is inflexible.

Directors should never ignore or delay acting on a demand, even if they believe the demand is invalid, the debt is disputed, or there has been a technical issue with service.

The safest course of action is to immediately consult legal counsel to determine the appropriate response – whether that’s paying the debt, negotiating with the creditor, or applying to set the demand aside.

Adopting these best practices ensures both sides of a statutory demand dispute are better protected.

In an age where email is now a legitimate and enforceable method of service, vigilance, documentation, and prompt action are no longer optional—they are essential.

Can You Serve a Statutory Demand by Email – Key Takeaways

The evolution of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to accommodate electronic communication—most notably through the introduction of section 600G—has brought statutory demand procedures in line with modern business practices.

Creditors can now serve statutory demands and related documents by email, offering a faster, more cost-effective alternative to traditional service methods.

However, this flexibility comes with important responsibilities.

For creditors, ensuring that documents are sent to a valid, nominated electronic address and keeping detailed records of correspondence is crucial.

For debtors, the ability to monitor electronic communications and respond within the strict 21-day timeframe is essential to avoid a presumption of insolvency.

In this new digital landscape, both sides must exercise heightened diligence.

The convenience of email must not be mistaken for informality. Legal service, even when virtual, remains a serious and technical process.

By understanding the risks and adopting best practice procedures, businesses can confidently navigate the challenges of serving—and responding to—statutory demands in the digital era.

If you’re interested in this type of content – Can you Still Serve a Bankruptcy Notice by Email?

Serving a Statutory Demand by Email – FAQ

This section answers common questions about serving and responding to statutory demands by email under the updated Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Whether you’re a creditor looking to issue a demand or a company director navigating your obligations, these concise answers clarify key legal concepts, deadlines, and best practices in light of the new electronic service provisions introduced by Part 1.2AA.

Can a statutory demand be served by email in Australia?

Yes, a statutory demand can be served by email under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), provided the requirements of Part 1.2AA are met. The email must be sent to an address reasonably believed to be current and the document must be accessible by the recipient. Actual opening of the email is not required—only retrievability matters under the law.

What legislation allows email service of statutory demands?

Part 1.2AA of the Corporations Act 2001, particularly sections 110C and 110D, governs electronic service. These provisions were introduced by the Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications and Other Measures) Act 2023, replacing the now-repealed section 600G. This updated framework enables documents like statutory demands to be served by email or electronic link, provided they are accessible.

When did the new electronic service rules take effect?

The key reforms took effect on 15 September 2023, when section 600G was repealed and Part 1.2AA commenced in full for insolvency-related documents. Although the broader Part 1.2AA framework began earlier, this specific date marks when it became fully applicable to statutory demands and similar notices.

Is there a requirement for the email to be read by the recipient?

No. Under section 105A, a document is deemed received once it becomes capable of being retrieved at the recipient’s nominated electronic address. The law does not require the recipient to read or open the email. This deeming provision is critical for validating service via electronic communication.

What is the 21-day rule for statutory demands?

A debtor company has 21 days from the date of service to respond to a statutory demand—either by paying the debt, negotiating with the creditor, or applying to set the demand aside in court. Missing this strict deadline results in a legal presumption of insolvency, allowing the creditor to apply to wind up the company.

Can a statutory demand be emailed to a director’s personal address?

Yes, if that email address has been used in formal company communications and is reasonably considered a nominated address. Courts have accepted personal emails as valid service points if there’s a pattern of consistent use, as in Stamford Bridge SW6 Pty Ltd v Cox [2024] NSWSC 486.

What if the company never opens the email?

Opening the email is not necessary. If the document is retrievable at the recipient’s email address, it is deemed served under section 105A. This shifts the responsibility to the debtor to monitor electronic correspondence, making missed emails no excuse for ignoring legal obligations.

What if the email goes to spam or junk?

The law does not excuse delivery failures due to internal email filtering. If the email is sent to an address reasonably believed to be valid and is retrievable, service is legally effective. Companies must check all folders, including spam, as part of their compliance procedures.

What is the risk of relying solely on email service?

The key risk is a challenge over whether service was valid. The sender must prove the document was sent to a valid address and was retrievable. Failure to retain delivery records or metadata can undermine the validity of service. For contested matters, traditional service methods may be safer.

What is meant by “reasonably accessible” under the Act?

“Reasonably accessible” means the document can be opened and read by the recipient without unreasonable barriers. For example, a PDF attached to an email would qualify. A corrupted or password-protected file without instructions may not meet this standard, risking the service being invalid.

Do you need a delivery or read receipt?

While not legally mandatory, a delivery or read receipt is highly recommended. It provides strong evidence the email was received. Email metadata, headers, and server logs should also be kept to support proof of service in case the debtor challenges the demand in court.

What happens if a statutory demand is served incorrectly?

If service is defective, the demand may be set aside or deemed never served, resetting the 21-day timeline. This can delay enforcement or render a winding-up application invalid. It’s essential to meet all service requirements, especially when relying on electronic delivery.

Can I serve a statutory demand by sending a link (e.g. Dropbox)?

Yes, under section 110D(1)(d) and (e), you can serve a statutory demand by providing a link to a document stored online—provided it is readily accessible and the recipient is reasonably expected to retrieve it. Make sure the link is not expired and doesn’t require login credentials without notice.

Are there any cases interpreting the new Part 1.2AA yet?

As of now, no court decisions have specifically applied Part 1.2AA to service of a statutory demand. However, courts have referenced transitional provisions (such as in Stamford Bridge v Cox), and it’s expected future case law will clarify interpretation under this new regime.

Should creditors still use postal or personal service?

Yes, in some cases. Traditional service under section 109X remains valid and may be preferable for high-value debts, likely disputes, or where email usage is unclear. It provides stronger evidence (e.g., affidavits of service) and avoids arguments over delivery failures or email validity.

What is a “nominated electronic address”?

This is an address explicitly or implicitly accepted by the company for communication. It can include emails used in prior dealings or registered with ASIC. Even if not formally nominated, consistent use in business correspondence may qualify under the Corporations Act.

How can debtors protect themselves from missing an emailed demand?

Debtors should implement strict email monitoring procedures. This includes checking all folders, monitoring ASIC-registered addresses, and designating responsible staff to flag legal correspondence. Prompt legal advice is essential if a demand is received—waiting even a day too long can be fatal to any response.

What if the demand is served late in the day or on a weekend?

Timing rules from section 105A apply. A document is taken to be received when it becomes retrievable. If sent after business hours or on a non-business day, it may still be deemed served that same day unless otherwise agreed. However, it’s safest to serve during business hours for clarity.

Can a company challenge the validity of email service?

Yes, but only if they can show the requirements of sections 110C and 110D were not met—e.g., that the address used was not valid, or the document was not reasonably accessible. Courts will scrutinise the sender’s evidence closely, so a weak challenge may fail if records are strong.

What’s the safest way to prove email service?

Retain email headers, delivery receipts, server logs, and confirmation that the address was in active use. Using reputable email software or tracking tools can enhance reliability. If in doubt, consider a combined service approach: send both by email and traditional method for maximum protection.