This session examines the Full Court’s decision in Tredders Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust v Channel 9 South Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2025] FCAFC 125. The case is the latest in a line of authorities rejecting attempts to discharge debts through self-issued promissory notes and pseudo-legal instruments. Drawing on the Bills of Exchange Act 1909, the Currency Act 1965, the Court reaffirmed that a promissory note is a contractual security, not legal tender, and only operates as conditional payment if the creditor consents.
Case Summary
-
The appellants argued that by tendering a $140,000 promissory note, and stipulating it was “deemed accepted” if not returned within 72 hours, they had paid Channel 9’s costs.
-
The Court held the earlier $126,000 settlement offer had lapsed, so no contract arose.
-
A promissory note does not discharge a debt unless the creditor agrees. Channel 9 expressly rejected the note, and legislation does not compel acceptance.
-
The Court fixed costs at $149,000 by way of a lump sum order, preferring finality over drawn out taxation.
Discussion Focus
-
What constitutes legal tender under Australian law, and the limited role of bills of exchange and promissory notes
-
Why self-issued notes cannot be imposed unilaterally on creditors or the ATO
-
How courts treat pseudo-legal payment arguments in debt and tax enforcement contexts
The case illustrates the clear line between lawful modes of payment and attempts to evade liability through self-created instruments, a recurring theme in tax debt disputes and litigation over enforcement.
Please see below link to case materials which is assumed reading in order to participate in the discussion:
Tredders Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust v Channel 9 South Australia Pty Ltd
Discussion led by Adrian Cartland.