Capree Lawyers Successfully Defending a $166,774 Debt Recovery Claim in the County Court of Victoria

Case study 1:

Our client, a Melbourne-based civil construction contractor, was served with a Writ and Statement of Claim in December 2025 by a major national debtor finance provider. The plaintiff claimed our client owed $166,774.19 in unpaid invoices, which it alleged had been assigned to it under a debtor finance facility with a subcontractor that had supplied reinforcement materials and services to our client between August and September 2025 

The subcontractor subsequently went into voluntary administration in October 2025 and was wound up by resolution of creditors in November 2025. The plaintiff then commenced proceedings in the County Court of Victoria (Commercial Division — Banking and Finance List) seeking to recover the full value of those invoices directly from our client 

Legal issues 

Capree Lawyers identified three fundamental lines of defence 

1. No privity of contract and no valid assignment 

Our client had never entered into any agreement with the plaintiff. The debtor finance facility was a contract between the plaintiff and the subcontractor only. To succeed, the plaintiff needed to establish a legally effective assignment — but the alleged notice of assignment (purportedly sent in January 2025) was never received by our client and, critically, did not appear in the plaintiff’s own discovery materials 

. None of the invoices contained any statement to the effect that the debt had been assigned, as required under the terms of the facility agreement itself 

1. Disputed invoices 

A detailed review of the invoices revealed significant problems with the plaintiff’s claim, including 

:

• Items charged twice (duplicate billing)
• Goods invoiced but not delivered
• Incorrect or non-compliant materials supplied
• Orders that were never placed by our client
• Defective goods and missing components requiring rework

1. Informal supplier relationship and liquidation 

There was no written contract between our client and the subcontractor. The relationship was entirely informal. Our client had also received no correspondence from the subcontractor’s liquidator regarding the alleged debts — a significant inconsistency if the debts were genuinely valid and properly assigned 

The work done 

Upon receiving instructions, Capree Lawyers filed a Notice of Appearance in the County Court on 13 January 2026, formally entering the proceeding and preserving our client’s right to defend 

. We simultaneously wrote to the plaintiff’s solicitors requesting production of key documents, including the debtor finance facility agreement, all invoices, the alleged notice of assignment, and the letter of demand 

On 15 January 2026, orders were made by Her Honour Judge Burchell in the Banking and Finance List 

. Importantly, those orders dispensed with the requirement for our client to file a formal defence pending early mediation — a strategically significant outcome that preserved our client’s flexibility and avoided locking in a formal pleading position before the evidence was fully assessed 

.

The orders required both parties to exchange affidavits. Capree Lawyers worked closely with our client’s director to prepare a detailed affidavit, filed on 5 February 2026, which systematically challenged the plaintiff’s evidence across all three lines of defence — the absence of the assignment notice from the plaintiff’s own discovery, the absence of any assignment statement in the invoices, and specific invoice-by-invoice disputes 

.

Consent orders were filed on 9 February 2026 by agreement between the parties 

Following the exchange of affidavits, the matter was referred to mediation. Capree Lawyers took a proactive role throughout this stage 

:

• We proposed and secured the appointment of an experienced mediator from the Victorian Bar (Green’s List), negotiating a half-day format at no-cost mediation rooms at Owen Dixon Chambers West — a proposal the plaintiff accepted 
• .
• Further consent orders were filed on 17 March 2026 extending the mediation deadline to 14 April 2026 
• .
• We prepared a comprehensive Mediation Preparation Brief for our client, setting out the key arguments, negotiation strategy, and a frank assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of both sides’ positions 
• .
• We prepared a detailed Mediation Paper identifying the three core issues the plaintiff would need to overcome at trial: standing to bring the claim, validity of the assignment, and whether the amounts were actually due and payable 
• .
• We prepared a thorough Opening Statement for delivery at mediation, marshalling the specific invoice defects — duplicate billing, non-delivery, incorrect goods, unplaced orders — as a powerful counter-narrative to the plaintiff’s framing of the matter as a straightforward debt recovery 
• .

The mediation took place on 2 April 2026 at Owen Dixon Chambers West, Melbourne 

The mediation resulted in a negotiated Deed of Settlement executed on 2 April 2026, without admissions 

. Following payment of the settlement sum, consent orders were submitted to the Court on 19 May 2026 and made by Judicial Registrar Bennett on 20 May 2026, dismissing the proceeding 

Key achievements