Letter of Demand [Step 2 ➲ Final Attempt to Recover a Debt]

Australian Capital Territory
New South Wales
Northern Territory
Queensland
South Australia
Tasmania
Victoria
Western Australia

Create this legal Document

Contact us to create this legal document.

Full Service

We create a bespoke document based on
your instructions.

From:

A$

220

Lawyer-Assisted ✅

Lawyer Assisted

Create the document yourself with 30 mins help from a lawyer.

A$

220

Lawyer-Assisted ✅

Lawyer Assisted

Create the document yourself with 30 mins help from a lawyer.

A$

220

Lawyer-Assisted ✅

Lawyer Assisted

Lawyer Assisted is not yet available for this document.

Self-Service 🏗

Most Popular

Self Service

Create the document instantly yourself by entering the key details.

A$

110

Self-Service 🏗

Most Popular

Self Service

Create the document instantly yourself by entering the key details.

A$

110

Self-Service 🏗

Self Service

Self Service is not yet available for this document.

110

Thank you! Your message has been received!
Oops! Please check your details and try again.

Please turn your device to landscape mode to begin creating your document.

Please turn your device to landscape mode to begin creating your document.

Please turn your device to landscape mode to begin creating your document.

Please turn your device to landscape mode to begin creating your document.

No items found.

If you have already sent our free [Self-Service] formal Letter of Demand [First Attempt to Recover a Debt] to the business or person (the Debtor) and the debt is still outstanding +/or you have not had any response, then we recommend this document as your next step

What is a Final Letter of Demand?

A Final Letter of Demand is the follow-up legal letter to your First Letter of Demand which in addition to referring to and restating the contents of your First Letter of Demand clearly states:

✅ Any update to the amount of the Debt the Debtor owes you;

✅ This is your final attempt to resolve the matter amicably;

✅ If there is no response or the debt remain outstanding, the next step you be forced to take will involve legal action being taken against them.

⚖️ The title "Final Letter of Demand” at the top of the page lets the debtor know they are out of time + if they continue to ignore your correspondence to fully expect that legal action is imminent.

A Final Letter of Demand provides the Debtor with one last chance to dispute the debt, pay the amount owed, or contact you to discuss payment arrangements.

Preparing the Final Letter of Demand yourself

If you decide to prepare the Final Letter of Demand yourself, you may wish to download + adapt the free sample letter provided by the Australian Government for your situation*.

Should you engage a lawyer to assist?

A lawyer can write + send a Final Letter of Demand on their law firm's letterhead for you based on your instructions.

Given that the letter will be sent from our law firm, this tends to provide more support & credibility for the statement that legal action will be taken if the demand is not responded to or met.

Tips to Collect Evidence of Postage + Delivery

💡 Make sure you send the letter by express post and note the tracking number;

💡 Take photos of the front + back of the addressed envelope before it is posted;

💡 Log the post office tracking number in your records, and take a screen capture or photo of the delivery confirmation, or otherwise save a copy;

💡 Keep these records in case you need these as evidence of proof of delivery in a Court or Tribunal later.

In the event of a dispute

If the Debtor responds to your Final Letter of Demand claiming a dispute regarding the amount of the debt +/or the quality or otherwise of the service or product provided, then your next step is to consider whether the Debtor's claims have any merit and if so whether to attempt to commence Settlement Negotiation.

Settlement Negotiation

Please refer to our article: How to cast a magic legal spell? The protection afforded by Without Prejudice Settlement Negotiations.

If the Debtor does not respond to this Final Letter of Demand

If the the Debtor is an Australian company we recommend you seriously consider serving the Debtor Company with a Statutory Demand with Affidavit of Debt / Court Judgment.

If the Debtor is not an Australian company, then we recommend you contact our legal team to discuss your next steps to attempt to recover the debt.

Why has it come to this? Root Cause Analysis

Please read our FAQ: Why has it come to this? Root Cause Analysis: Letters of Demand/Statutory Demand for non-payment of debt

*Reference: Free guidance provided by the Australian Government regarding drafting a Letter of Demand.

Credits:

Social Media Share Image courtesy of Florencia Viadana on Unsplash

Test your knowledge and get a discount for this document: take the .

Enter the code WHen you pay full price to Purchase one of the following Self Service documents:

No items found.

Re-Enter the code at checkout each time you buy the following documents to get a discount:

No items found.

Resources

What clients say

swipe left or right to view more testimonials
An illegal website is trying to use our name [a US-hosted duplicate of the entire business eCommerce Website] to gain advantages and scam customers. All the major search engines ignore it. James has initiated a DMCA takedown and will resolve the issue within one week. [Details Added for Clarity]. He understands how things work and knows the reason behind the issue.

Alex Ch. | DMCA Takedown Notice ➲ U.S. Online Copyright Infringment

,

Google

8

Jan 2024

Great service by james, very quick and minimal charges, glad to find Blue Ocean Law Group online. Definitely recommend to anyone and everyone for online law services. Thanks JAMES.

Mohar Singh

25

Oct 2023

After having received outrageous quotes from other firms, and wasting my money paying what I wasn't meant to pay, I finally found Blue Ocean Law Group online. Real people, solved my problem with empathy, communication, honesty and above all, professionality. A special thanks to James Ford. I will definitely keep this law firm in mind for any further issues, and highly recommend them if you want problems solved!! Thank you.

Wally Trotta

,

Google

15

Oct 2023

James is very helpful and patient with explaining the details. I look forward to working with you again in the future.

Ribbon Hime

11

Oct 2023

blueocean.law has awesome legal docs + legal wizards/services on its website! Especially its FREE U.S. Non-Immigrant Visa Application Legal Wizard [Global] which is right on point for my current business needs.

Aadeel Khan | U.S. Based SaaS Entrepreneur

15

Sep 2023

Meeting with James was a pleasure, I experienced something truly exceptional, and I can't help but share my enthusiasm through this review. The service I received was impeccable. James was not only highly professional but also genuinely friendly, making me feel like a valued client throughout that moment.

Ashraf Said | Justice of the Peace ➲ Accountant in Ingleburn (NSW) [1 of 3]

25

Aug 2023

blueocean.law's website is an incredible treasure trove of information! The depth and clarity of the content provided are truly impressive. It's evident that a lot of effort and expertise has gone into curating such a valuable resource. Thank you for creating a platform that’s engaging and very informative. Highly recommended.

Ashraf Said | Justice of the Peace ➲ Accountant in Ingleburn (NSW) [2 of 3]

25

Aug 2023

They were very knowledgeable and provided me with valuable information. Attention to detail was not limited, yet without sacrificing substance for style. In conclusion, our meeting provided an unforgettable experience, and the knowledge that I received was something truly remarkable. Highly recommended.

Ashraf Said | Justice of the Peace ➲ Accountant in Ingleburn (NSW) [3 of 3]

25

Aug 2023

This thought-provoking article underscores the often overlooked yet profoundly important aspect of estate planning – the ethical will or legacy letter – adding depth and significance to the process of passing down not just assets, but personal values and wisdom.

Penny McCreery | Lember & Williams | Lawyers In Caboolture #2

8

Aug 2023

General FAQ

What are creditors' debt collection guidelines?

Debt Collection Guidelines

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) & the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) have published:

➲ Joint Debt Collection Guidelines.

Both the ACCC and ASIC enforce Commonwealth consumer protection laws, including laws relevant to debt collection.
The ACCC and ASIC have jointly produced this guideline which aims to assist creditors, collectors and debtors understand their rights and obligations, and ensure that debt collection activity is undertaken in a way that is consistent with consumer protection laws.
The guide was originally published in 2005 and has been updated to reflect significant changes to the law, such as the introduction of the Australian Consumer Law in 2011, the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009, and privacy laws and principles.

Source: ACCC Debt collection guideline for collectors & creditors

How can Security of Payment Legislation assist debt collection?

Is this a building/construction matter?

If the debt involves a progress claim under a building contract or sub-contract for the supply of goods or services in the building industry, then you will have the option to invoke the relevant state/territories Security of Payment Statutory Scheme.

Security of Payment refers to any system designed to ensure that contractors + sub-contractors in the building industry are paid even in case of dispute.

This can involve a system of progress payments, interim arbitration decisions, or a system which legally requires a company to pay an invoice within a set number of days, regardless of whether the company believes they are accurate.

Background to the Security of Payment Legislation

Security of Payment legislation has been introduced by each Australian State and Territory to allow for the rapid determination of progress claims under building contracts or sub-contracts and contracts for the supply of goods or services in the building industry.

This process, which establishes adjudication as the primary dispute resolution mechanism, was designed to ensure cash flow to businesses in the construction industry, without the parties getting tied up in lengthy and expensive litigation or arbitration.

In addition to quick payment, the scheme also allows for Security of Payment to be provided in stages or payment schedule.

Common method used to invoke the operation of the Security of Payment Statutory Scheme

The relevant State/Territory Security of Payment Statutory Scheme can be invoked by including the following words of your invoice.

"This is a payment claim made pursuant to the Building and Construction Industry (Security of Payment) Act 2009 (ACT)”; or
"This is a payment claim made under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 NSW".
These Statements may vary depending in which State/Territory the Claim is made......".

These statements have not been a requirement in NSW since legislative amendments made in 2013.

Advantages

✅ Secures Rapid Payment;

✅ Adjudication is Quicker + Less Expensive than Court;

Disadvantages

❌ Potential for Power Imbalance;

❌ Confusion + Poor Understanding;

❌ Costliness of Dispute Resolution.

Credits:

This FAQ was written by James D. Ford GAICD | Principal Solicitor, Blue Ocean Law Group℠.

Important Notice:

This FAQ is intended for general interest + information only.

It is not legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or used as such.

We recommend you always consult a lawyer for legal advice specifically tailored to your needs & circumstances.

How do I ensure I get the pre-litigation steps right?

How do I ensure I get the pre-litigation steps right?

If you have a written agreement with the Debtor/standard terms of trade

The identity of the Debtor and their address for service (incl. email +/or fax) should already be clearly specified in the agreement, or provided by the Debtor as part of your standard business processes.

We also assume that the terms of your agreement will provide permission to serve notices via email or fax (if required).

If there is no written agreement

You will need to consider whether you already know the actual identity of the Debtor/Defendant and their address for notices/Service.

The Debtor/Defendant may not be the person with whom you made the original agreement, or the person who actually published the defamatory statement.

The person you might consider is the Debtor/Defendant may have been acting/dealing as an agent or employee of another person, the actual owner/s of the business, a sole trader, partnership, unincorporated association, company, etc.

If you only have the name of the business, you can start by conducting a free ASIC business names index + business names holder organisation/person searches to determine the owner of the business name, followed by a paid ASIC search to determine a valid + current address for Service.

connectonline.asic.gov.au

If the Debtor/Defendant is a Company

Before sending a Letter of Demand/Statutory Demand/Concerns Notice to a Debtor company, we strongly recommend you conduct a paid current ASIC Company Search (min. cost $9) to confirm that:

✅ The Debtor/Defendant company is not currently under administration/in liquidation; and to

✅ Ascertain the companies current registered office address for service.

Legal Assistance

If you have any questions regarding the above please contact our legal team to discuss.

Credits:

This FAQ was written by James D. Ford GAICD | Principal Solicitor, Blue Ocean Law Group℠.

Important Notice:

This FAQ is intended for general interest + information only.

It is not legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or used as such.

We recommend you always consult a lawyer for legal advice specifically tailored to your needs & circumstances.

How do I negotiate my civil dispute whilst protecting myself?

You have the right to remain silent … in your civil legal dispute

By the time you approach a lawyer to assist with your civil legal dispute you may have already discussed the matter in detail or sent text messages/emails to the other party, their agent, insurance company or lawyers.

Whilst you might think you are progressing the matter:

➲ This is generally a mistake!

Most people [unless they are experienced in litigation or legal dispute resolution] will unknowingly proceed to make these communications with the other side on an "open” basis.

This means that everything that is said or written might be capable of being used by the other parties in any subsequent legal proceedings.

We recommend you don't say or write anything until you have spoken to your lawyer

It is generally known that in any criminal matter, you have the “right to remain silent …” as this is well-covered territory on TV/Movie Legal Dramas and in the media.

When it comes to civil disputes we recommend you adopt the same position.

Our advice may be spot on when it comes to large $$ civil disputes.

Proceeding without your lawyer

When the matter is only a minor one, you may not want to go to the time and/or expense of engaging legal advice specific to your situation.

Q: How then can you proceed?

A: Very carefully, and with the assistance of some very specific legal phraseology which you may or may not have seen before.

Please refer to our blog article “How to cast a magic legal spell? The protection afforded by Without Prejudice Settlement Negotiations." for more information.

Credits:

This FAQ was written by James D. Ford GAICD | Principal Solicitor, Blue Ocean Law Group℠.

Important Notice:

This FAQ is intended for general interest + information only.

It is not legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or used as such.

We recommend you always consult a lawyer for legal advice specifically tailored to your needs & circumstances.

What to consider before commencing legal proceedings?

Prior to deciding whether to commence Legal Proceedings

Laches + Limitation Periods

Please read our FAQ: What are the downsides to delaying 1️⃣ Informing the other side of my claim against them; or 2️⃣ Filing my claim with the Court?

Litigation Risk

We strongly recommend you obtain legal advice + assistance regarding:

✅ Determining whether the Debtor has the potential financial means to ultimately pay the debt + interest + legal costs should you be successful in your claim;

✅ If the Debtor is an individual, conducting a Bankruptcy Search;

✅ If the Debtor is a company, conducting a Bankruptcy Search;

✅ Determining whether the Debtor has been or is currently involved in other legal proceedings;

✅ The legal merits of your claim; and

✅ Ensuring you understand that it is extremely rare to recover your legal costs in litigation; and

✅ The inherent Litigation Risk of potential liability for the Debtor's legal costs in commencing legal proceedings in a Court, as opposed to a Tribunal;

✅ The cost + availability of litigation funding, +/or litigation insurance.

Valid + Effective Service

The requirements for valid + effective Service of a Filed Application or Statement of Claim vary depending on the relevant Court or Tribunal.

We strongly recommend you obtain legal advice + assistance regarding:

✅ The selection of the appropriate Court or Tribunal to bring suit; as well as

✅ The drafting of the required Application/Statement of Claim; and

✅ The compliant Service of same on the Debtor once legal proceedings have been filed.

Credits:

This FAQ was written by James D. Ford GAICD | Principal Solicitor, Blue Ocean Law Group℠.

Important Notice:

This FAQ is intended for general interest + information only.

It is not legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or used as such.

We recommend you always consult a lawyer for legal advice specifically tailored to your needs & circumstances.

Can I insure against loss at trial in Australia?

AUSTRALIANS CAN NOW INSURE THEMSELVES AGAINST LOSS AT TRIAL

Australian claimants looking to protect themselves against a loss at trial can now insure themselves locally instead of sourcing cover from overseas

In late 2016, Aon announced the first Australian “After the Event” (ATE) policy for claimants looking to protect themselves against a loss at trial through underwriter Ironshore Australia Pty Ltd.

ATE insurance protects claimants, whether a client or a law firm, by partially deferring payment of the premium, and payment is contingent on the success of the claim.

Eden Fletcher, National Financial Lines Placement Manager, Aon Risk Solutions Australia said this was a significant step for the Australian legal system.

“ATE insurance has been established in the UK for some time and Australian clients have been able to access the cover by going abroad. However, the overseas policies are not made with the Australian market and legislative system in mind. By being able to now access the product here, it will give clients comfort the product is fit for purpose, and is commissioned by local lawyers,” he said.
“Australia has become the most likely jurisdiction outside of the USA in which a corporation will face significant class action litigation. The risks and costs of fighting these cases are high, most are settled before they reach the courts. With a local solution now available, this provides solicitors with an opportunity to take on more cases as their client’s representative, given the client will have the protection of this insurance,” Mr Fletcher said.

The intention of this policy is not to encourage litigation, since premiums provide an incentive to settle early rather than progress deeper into trial, with the rate varying according to the stage at which the litigation is settled.

“We believe ATE insurance will be eagerly explored by law firms acting for the claimant, as it will make a higher percentage of potential class actions even more viable than present, subject to the merits of the case. When there is ATE insurance behind the case, it validates the case has a reasonable chance of success given Ironshore’s due diligence and underwriting methodology,” Mr Fletcher said.

To find out more about ATE litigation insurance:

➲ Contact Us.

Credits:

This FAQ was written by James D. Ford GAICD | Principal Solicitor, Blue Ocean Law Group℠.

Root Cause Analysis: Why Debt Collection?

Root Cause Analysis

In order to reduce the need to send Letters of Demand/Statutory Demands in the future, it is worthwhile to conduct a root cause analysis which might include the following questions:

✅ Did you perform reference checks on the Debtor?

✅ Did you perform a credit check before extending credit?

✅ If you are dealing with a company, did you obtain a personal guarantee from the company directors to support the account?

✅ Does your written agreement include a term granting you the right to secure a charge against the Debtor's current +/or future real and/or personal property?

✅ Do you have a written agreement with the Debtor, which includes payment terms, address for service, and the capability to serve notices via email/fax?

✅ Did you engage a lawyer to prepare your written agreement with the debtor or your standard terms of trade?

Credits:

This FAQ was written by James D. Ford GAICD | Principal Solicitor, Blue Ocean Law Group℠.

Important Notice:

This FAQ is intended for general interest + information only.

It is not legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or used as such.

We recommend you always consult a lawyer for legal advice specifically tailored to your needs & circumstances.

What are the downsides if you delay claiming legal rights?

Generally speaking, to help ensure you obtain the best possible outcome, it is recommended that as soon as practical you:

1️⃣ Proceed to obtain legal advice;

2️⃣ Instruct your lawyer to inform the other side that you have a claim against them, and attempt to settle the matter; and if this is not successful

3️⃣ Proceed to take steps to enforce your legal rights without any further delay.

Apart from the risk of the lapse of any Statute of Limitations Period, if your claim seeks equitable relief, failure to provide notice to the defendant that you have a claim and intend to enforce it, may open the door to allow the defendant to seek reliance on the equitable defence of laches, or more generally estoppel with the circumstances of the case unfolding in support of these defences the longer the defendant is able to show inaction on your part.

What is the equitable defence of laches?

Laches is a defence only available to a defendant in equity, where a plaintiff's lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, is viewed as conduct which allows the defendant to develop a belief that the plaintiff will not be seeking to make any claim and to continue about their life dealing with their affairs in reliance on this belief. Wikipedia

In Streeter v Western Areas Exploration Pty Ltd (No 2) (2011) 278 ALR 291 at para. [635] per McLure P considered:

"Whether the conduct of the plaintiff amounted to an acquiescence or caused the defendant to alter their position in reliance on the plaintiff’s acceptance of their actions”.

Consequently, a defendant may be able to argue the equitable defence of laches on a much shorter time frame than the relevant statutory limitation period.

In Hourigan v Trustees Executors and Agency Co Ltd (1934) 51 CLR 619 per Rich J:

The Court will not “disregard the election of the party not to institute his claim and treat as unimportant the length of time during which he has slept upon his rights and induced the common assumption that he does not possess any”.

In Gillespie & Ors v Gillespie [2013] QCA 99 MARGARET WILSON J (with whom MARGARET McMURDO P & WHITE JA agreed) at para. [79] of her judgment provided a summary of the applicable law regarding the equitable defence of Laches:

"Laches is an equitable doctrine, under which delay can bar a claim to equitable relief."
Deane J (with whom Mason CJ agreed) observed in Orr v Ford that the ultimate test is that enunciated by the Privy Council in Lindsay Petroleum Co v Hurd
“… whether the plaintiff has, by his inaction and standing by, placed the defendant or a third party in a situation in which it would be inequitable and unreasonable ‘to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted’: see Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co, and also, per Rich J, Hourigan.”
The learned authors of Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity Doctrines and Remedies posit that there are two types of laches –
(i)         delay with acquiescence, where prejudice to others need not be shown; and
(ii)        more commonly, delay with prejudice to others.
However, in Fisher v Brooker Lord Neuberger said –
“Although I would not suggest that it is an immutable requirement, some sort of detrimental reliance is usually an essential ingredient of laches, in my opinion. In Lindsay Petroleum Co v Hurd (1874) LR 5 PC 221, 239-240, Lord Selborne LC, giving the opinion of the Board, said that laches applied where ‘it would be practically unjust to give a remedy’, and that, in every case where a defence ‘is founded upon mere delay… the validity of that defence must be tried upon principles substantially equitable’.
He went on to state that what had to be considered were ‘the length of the delay and the nature of the acts done during the interval, which might affect either party, and cause a balance of justice or injustice in taking the one course or the other, so far as relates to the remedy’.”
Trying the validity of the defence on equitable principles involves the balancing of equities.  
In Erlanger v New Sombrero Phosphate Co Lord Blackburn said –
“…it must always be a question of more or less, depending on the degree of diligence which might reasonably be required, and the degree of change which has occurred, whether the balance of justice or injustice is in favour of granting the remedy or withholding it.
The determination of such a question must largely depend on the turn of mind of those who have to decide, and must therefore be subject to uncertainty; but that, I think, is inherent in the nature of the inquiry.”
And in Fysh v Page Dixon CJ, Webb and Kitto JJ said –
“If a plaintiff establishes prima-facie grounds for relief the question whether he is defeated by delay must itself be governed by the kind of considerations upon which the principles of equity proceed.
If the delay means that to grant relief would place the party whose title might otherwise be voidable on equitable grounds in an unreasonable situation, or if, because of change of circumstances, it would give the party claiming relief an unjust advantage or would impose an unfair prejudice on the opposite party, these are matters which may suffice to answer the prima-facie grounds for relief.”

Credits:

This FAQ was written by James D. Ford GAICD | Principal Solicitor, Blue Ocean Law Group℠.

Important Notice:

This FAQ is intended for general interest + information only.

It is not legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or used as such.

We recommend you always consult a lawyer for legal advice specifically tailored to your needs & circumstances.

What constitutes "Hardship Notice"?

Hardship Notice

72 Changes on Ground of Hardship
(1) If a debtor considers that he or she is or will be unable to meet his or her obligations under a credit contract, the debtor may give the credit provider notice (a hardship notice), orally or in writing, of the debtor’s inability to meet the obligations.

As per s 72 (above) of the National Credit Code 2009 (Cth), a debtor who thinks they will be unable to meet their obligations under a credit contract can give notice to the creditor of their inability.

This notice can be given either orally or in writing.

When giving notice, the debtor is not obliged to frame the notice in a certain way, or to make use of a certain form, though it remains up for debate as to whether the words "hardship" or "hardship notice" have to be used for a debtor to properly give s 72 notice of hardship (see RHG Mortgage Corp Ltd v Saunders [2016] below).

The bar for giving notice has reduced somewhat since 16 May 2013, prior to which the debtor seeking to notice had to specify one of three ways in which they sought to have the credit contract changed.

Since the 2013 amendments, the debtor is no longer obliged to first propose how the credit contract should be changed.

It would now appear that a debtor need only give notice to the creditor, at which point it is now the creditor's duty to either:

1️⃣ Request further information from the debtor (including how the credit contract should be changed); or

2️⃣ If the debtor requested specific changes when putting the creditor on notice in the first place, to return to the debtor with a verdict as to whether the creditor has or has not agreed to the changes proposed.

The creditor must take do one of the above actions within 21 days of receiving the initial hardship notice from the debtor.

Failure to do so attracts a civil penalty for the creditor.

RHG Mortgage Corp Ltd v Saunders [2016] NSWSC 1037

Had the substantive issues in this matter been heard, perhaps it would have provided some precedent as to whether a debtor needs to use the word "hardship" to put a creditor on notice of hardship, or whether other words to the equivalent are sufficient.

Unfortunately, it would appear as though the matter settled after a couple of interlocutory hearings.

Nonetheless, Garling J. suggested here that the latter position (words equivalent hardship are sufficient) may well be an arguable position, though he went no further as to the merits of this argument, as it did not fall for determination.

Perhaps this suggestion could provide the basis for a future legal challenge?

Implied Hardship Notice?

What happens if I haven't given notice? Is there such a thing as an implied hardship notice?

The legislation mentions nothing of circumstances in which a creditor might be impliedly put on notice as to a debtor's hardship. As such, it would appear difficult to imagine a situation where a creditor might be impliedly put on notice of hardship.

The 2013 amendments to the National Credit Code 2009 (Cth) appears to have had the effect of reducing the task of the debtor to expressly put a creditor on hardship notice.

Even if the debtor offers no further information as to the circumstances of hardship or how they would like the credit contract amended, the onus is on the credit provider to request that information from the debtor once the debtor has given effective notice under s 72(1).

Whilst it is dangerous to make assumptions about the operation of the law, it seems unlikely that any court would read into the National Credit Code 2009 (Cth) the existence of an implied hardship notice.

The matter has not been brought before the courts, and as such, there is no guidance from case law.

Besides, the importance of time is well established in s 72.

It constitutes a breach of the law, amounting to 5000 civil penalty units, for a creditor to fail to return to the debtor with a verdict within the relevant time frame.

Given time is of the essence, an implied hardship notice is unlikely to sit well with the law here, as it is difficult to place a time regarding when notice may be said to have been given, where it may be given tacitly.

Is it too late for me to make / give Notice of Hardship?

Enforcement Proceedings and s 89A of the National Credit Code

From s 89A of the National Credit Code 2009 (Cth), it is evident that a debtor may make give notice of hardship even after a creditor has given the debtor a default notice.

89A Effect of hardship notices on enforcement
(1) This section applies if ...
(b) before or after the credit provider gives the default notice, the debtor gives the credit provider a hardship notice (the current hardship notice) under section 72; and

The effect of s 89A is to prevent creditors from initiating enforcement proceedings until 14 days after the creditor has responded to the hardship notice. Besides this, it affords a debtor the opportunity to give hardship notice to a creditor even after default.

Best case scenario, a creditor, upon examination of the debtor's circumstances, may consider that changing the credit contract as favourable over enforcement proceedings.

RHG Mortgage Corporation Ltd v Sava [2011] QSC 372

It would appear possible to give notice of hardship even subsequent to the commencement of enforcement proceedings. Atkinson J here notes that a judge hearing the matter previously adjourned the matter to allow the defendant to give a hardship notice to the creditor:

"Because there has not been any complying application, the obligations which inhere in the credit provider under s 72 (3) have not arisen.
This matter came to court on a previous occasion and it appears that the Judge hearing it adjourned it to allow Mr Sava, the defendant, to obtain legal advice with regard to making a complying application for hardship to the mortgagee/plaintiff or to the court under s 74" per Atkinson J.

Outside Options?

For a debtor unable to rely on the provisions relating to hardship notices, a debtor may consider making a claim on s 76, should it be possible to construe the terms of the credit contract as unfair in some way:

76 Court may reopen unjust transactions
(1) The court may, if satisfied on the application of a debtor, mortgagor or guarantor that, in the circumstances relating to the relevant credit contract, mortgage or guarantee at the time it was entered into or changed (whether or not by agreement), the contract, mortgage or guarantee or change was unjust, reopen the transaction that gave rise to the contract, mortgage or guarantee or change.

Credits:

The above overview of the law pertaining to Hardship Notices under the National Credit Code was prepared by Suk Jae Chung | Practical Legal Training (PLT) Placement, Blue Ocean Law Group℠.

Important Notice:

This FAQ is intended for general interest + information only.

It is not legal advice, nor should it be relied upon or used as such.

We recommend you always consult a lawyer for legal advice specifically tailored to your needs & circumstances.