Court rejects director’s bid to represent company and finds no basis to refuse winding-up order
The Federal Court of Australia has ordered Medicheckr Pty Ltd to be wound up in insolvency after the company failed to comply with a statutory demand for $70,462.20 issued by the deputy commissioner of taxation.
In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Medicheckr Pty Ltd [2026] FCA 1524, the court found that the company failed to rebut the statutory presumption of insolvency and that the evidence provided no basis to decline a winding-up order.
The deputy commissioner issued the statutory demand on 1 October 2025, requiring Medicheckr to pay the outstanding amount within 21 days. The company failed to comply by the 31 October deadline and did not apply to set aside the demand.
The deputy commissioner commenced winding-up proceedings on 3 December 2025 under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Before considering the application, the court refused Medicheckr’s director permission to represent the company after its solicitors withdrew two days before the final hearing. Under r 4.01(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), corporations should ordinarily conduct court proceedings through a lawyer, although the court may dispense with that requirement.
The Federal Court found insufficient grounds to waive that requirement. It noted the lack of financial evidence, the director’s prior notice of the hearing, and concerns about his capacity to conduct the proceedings objectively.
The court nevertheless considered the director’s written submissions, which asserted that Medicheckr remained solvent and could satisfy its taxation obligations.
The director attributed the company’s tax arrears to its accountant’s health issues in 2022, which had left several lodgements outstanding. He maintained that the company was working to reconcile its taxation affairs and that he personally had sufficient funds to pay the debt.
He also submitted that Medicheckr was prepared to pay the amount claimed immediately upon receiving payment details and sought dismissal or discontinuance of the proceedings following payment.
However, the court found that the director provided no evidence to support those assertions or show that the company’s financial position might improve.
The court also considered a potential defect in service of the originating process. It found that any failure to serve the documents within the statutory 14-day period had caused no substantial injustice, particularly given subsequent service and adjournments.
The court concluded that the deputy commissioner had established the statutory grounds for winding up and that the director’s unsupported submissions did not justify declining to exercise its discretion to order winding up.
