Logo
コラム

Debt Recovery in Australia

ティモシー・チェン · 2026年3月3日

Debt recovery is rarely a straightforward exercise. In the current economic climate, businesses and individuals frequently encounter difficulties in recovering outstanding accounts. This can result in interrupted cash flow and heightened financial pressure. While debt recovery is commonly associated with Court proceedings, litigation is not always the first or most appropriate step. There are several other options that may be pursued before formal legal action becomes necessary. Whether you are a business owner, contractor, or private creditor, an understanding of the debt recovery mechanisms available in Australia is essential to determining the most effective course of action. The following outlines the principal debt recovery options available across Australian jurisdictions, progressing from the least litigious to the most litigious.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Given that litigation can be both expensive and time-intensive, creditors are generally encouraged to explore alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes in the first instance. ADR methods, including negotiation and mediation, involve structured discussions between the creditor and debtor, often with the assistance of legal representatives. These processes aim to resolve disputes without recourse to the Courts. As ADR occurs outside the formal Court system, it is not subject to rigid procedural rules. This allows greater flexibility and enables parties to reach practical and mutually acceptable outcomes that may not otherwise be available through litigation.  The most commonly used ADR methods include: •    Negotiation: Direct discussions between the parties and their legal representatives with the objective of reaching an agreed resolution. •    Mediation: Engagement of an independent mediator who facilitates discussions and assists the parties in identifying common ground, without imposing a decision. Although ADR is less adversarial than Court proceedings, the involvement of solicitors underscores the seriousness of the debt recovery effort and signals that further action may be taken if negotiations fail. This distinguishes ADR from informal discussions. From the debtor’s perspective, ADR may also be preferable, as it can reduce exposure to legal costs, accrued interest, and prolonged litigation.

Issuing a Letter of Demand Where ADR processes do not result in an agreement, a creditor will often proceed by issuing a letter of demand. A letter of demand is a formal legal notice that clearly outlines the amount owing, specifies a timeframe for payment, and advises of the consequences should the debt remain unpaid. It commonly serves as a final opportunity for the debtor to resolve the matter prior to the commencement of legal proceedings. It is generally advisable to engage legal practitioners to prepare and issue a letter of demand. A carefully drafted letter not only increases the likelihood of payment but also establishes an important foundation should Court proceedings later become necessary.

Commencing Court Proceedings If earlier attempts at resolution are unsuccessful, a creditor may elect to commence legal proceedings. This generally requires the preparation and filing of a claim in a Court with appropriate jurisdiction. Each Australian state and territory has its own Court structure, and the relevant Court is typically determined by the value of the claim.  The following is a summary of the principal jurisdictional thresholds in three key states. New South Wales •    Claims of up to $20,000 are generally heard in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court. •    Claims between $20,000 and $100,000 are generally heard in the General Division of the Local Court. •    Claims up to $1,250,000 are generally heard in the District Court. •    Claims exceeding $750,000 may be commenced in the Supreme Court. The overlapping jurisdiction of the District Court and the Supreme Court provides some discretion; however, the Supreme Court typically hears matters involving higher monetary values, greater complexity, or issues of legal significance. Victoria •    Claims up to $100,000 are generally heard in the Magistrates’ Court. •    Claims exceeding $100,000 are generally heard in the County Court, which has unlimited civil jurisdiction. •    The Supreme Court of Victoria also has unlimited jurisdiction and typically hears matters of greater complexity or legal significance.

Queensland •    Claims up to $150,000 are generally heard in the Magistrates Court. •    Claims between $150,000 and $750,000 are generally heard in the District Court. •    Claims exceeding $750,000 may be commenced in the Supreme Court.

If the claim is successful, the Court will usually issue orders requiring the debtor to pay the full judgment amount.

Enforcement of a Judgment Debt Once judgment has been entered, the debtor is ordinarily given 28 days to satisfy the debt voluntarily. In circumstances where the debtor fails to comply with the Court order, enforcement action may be required. The limitation period for enforcing a judgment debt varies by jurisdiction but is generally 12 years from the date of judgment. In New South Wales, for example, a judgment debt may be enforced for up to 12 years pursuant to section 17 of the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW). Several enforcement options are available across Australian jurisdictions, with the most common being garnishee orders and writs: •    Garnishee Orders: Court orders that permit the creditor to recover the judgment debt directly from the debtor’s wages, bank accounts, or from third parties who owe money to the debtor. •    Writs of Levy of Property: Orders authorising the seizure and sale of the debtor’s personal or real property to satisfy the judgment debt. Given the complexity of debt recovery and enforcement procedures, and the differences between state and territory jurisdictions, obtaining legal advice or engaging solicitors to manage the process is strongly recommended. H & H Lawyers has extensive experience in both Australian and international debt recovery matters and is available to provide guidance or assistance where required.

This article is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The information provided should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. If you require assistance with a debt recovery matter, please contact H & H Lawyers directly.

Key Contacts

ティモシー・チェン profile image

ティモシー・チェン

パートナー弁護士

Related Insights

もっと見る

契約に関する紛争,法人税および個人税に関するアドバイス,コーポレートガバナンス

2026年2月27日

AML/CTF Reforms – What Existing Reporting Entities Need to Do before 31 March 2026

1. Overview of the Reforms Significant changes to Australia’s Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing (AML/CTF) regime are taking effect under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Amendment Act 2024 (the Amendment Act) and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Rules 2025 (the Rules). These reforms represent a fundamental shift toward an outcomes-based, risk-oriented framework, aligned with international standards set by the Financial Action Task Force.

詳しく見る

契約に関する紛争,異議申し立て,契約書・商業契約全般

2025年9月26日

小規模事業者再編制度(Small Business Restructuring)

小規模事業者再編制度(Small Business Restructuring) 2021年に導入された小規模事業者再編制度(Small Business Restructuring=SBR)は、オーストラリア全土の小規模事業者、特に近年の経済低迷の影響を受けた企業にとって、会社清算に代わる重要な選択肢となっています。 特にファミリービジネスを含む小規模企業の事業継続を支援するために設計されたSBRは、企業が営業を続けながら、法的に財務状況をリセットできる仕組みです。 事業継続のための法的手段 SBRは、債務超過に直面した小規模事業者が、従来の清算手続きによる会社閉鎖を回避できるように設けられました。 SBRを利用することで、該当企業は債権者に対して再編計画を提案し、会社法(Corporations Act)に基づき、債務の削減や免除を求めることが可能です。 このプロセスにより、企業は営業を継続しながら、法的に整理された形で財務問題に対処できます。 利用資格と手続き SBRを利用するには、総債務額が100万ドル以下であり、未払いの従業員賃金や年金(superannuation)は含まれていないことが条件になります。 SBRの実行には債権者の承認が必要です。債権者の投票権は貸している金額によって決まり、債務全体の51%以上を持つ債権者が最終決定権を持つことになります。 利用増加とその影響 ASICの最新データによると、SBRの申請件数は大幅に増加しており、昨年は約3,000件が債権者に提示されました。 この増加は、SBRの認知度向上と、多くの小規模事業者が厳しい経営環境に直面していることを反映しています。 特に飲食業界は大きな打撃を受けており、同業界の10社に1社が昨年清算されました。 多くの再編計画では、債務額が20万〜40万ドルの範囲で、債務の最大80%の免除を債権者に求めています。 SBRの約80%が承認されているのも注目すべき点です。 オーストラリア税務局(ATO)の役割 SBR案件の93%に関与しているオーストラリア税務局(ATO)は、最大の債権者(GST) として重要な役割を果たしています。 ATOはこれまでに約2,500件のSBR計画を承認しており、2024-25会計年度3月時点では、ATOが債権者となった再編計画の約80%に賛成票を投じています。 宿泊業および飲食業(カフェ、レストラン、テイクアウトサービスを含む)は、SBR全体の22%を占めています。 ATOの関与が大きいため、再編計画の可否はほとんどの場合、ATOの判断に左右されます。 ATOが再編計画に賛成すれば、他の小口債権者もその計画に組み込まれる形となります。 制度のセーフガードと除外規定 制度の健全性を保つため、過去7年以内に清算や再編に関与した取締役がいる企業は、SBRの申請資格がありません。

詳しく見る

契約に関する紛争,労働法訴訟,裁判に代わる紛争解決(ADR),契約書・商業契約全般

2025年9月17日

Artificial Intelligence (AI) and International Arbitration

International arbitration has long been valued for its flexibility, neutrality, and adaptability. In recent years, however, the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has introduced a new set of opportunities and challenges that are likely to reshape arbitral practice. Unlike earlier waves of technological change, AI has a particularly pervasive impact: it is capable of touching almost every stage of the arbitral lifecycle; from pre-dispute planning and arbitrator selection to evidentiary and document review, hearings, award drafting, and enforcement.

詳しく見る

契約に関する紛争,企業アドバイザリー、M & A,法人税および個人税に関するアドバイス,裁判に代わる紛争解決(ADR),契約書・商業契約全般,コーポレートガバナンス,コンプライアンスおよびアドバイザリーサービス

2025年8月13日

Ad hoc and Institutional Arbitration

Arbitration is an increasingly preferred alternative to traditional litigation, particularly in commercial and international disputes. For businesses engaged in cross-border transactions, especially within the Asia-Pacific region, choosing between institutional and ad hoc arbitration can significantly influence the efficiency, cost and enforceability of dispute resolution. This article outlines key differences and practical considerations to help parties make informed decisions.

詳しく見る

契約に関する紛争,企業アドバイザリー、M & A,法人税および個人税に関するアドバイス,裁判に代わる紛争解決(ADR),契約書・商業契約全般,コーポレートガバナンス

2025年7月15日

How Can International Arbitration Be Made Cost Effective?

Making International Arbitration More Cost Effective International arbitration remains a preferred method for resolving cross-border disputes, especially in the Asia-Pacific. However, the process can be costly and protracted, often attracting criticism from commercial parties who seek timely and efficient outcomes. As arbitration continues to evolve in the region, cost effectiveness requires coordinated efforts from parties, arbitrators, institutions and legislators alike.

詳しく見る

契約書・商業契約全般

2023年6月8日

不公正な契約条項 ― 「曖昧」で「極端に一方的な」契約条項は無効となる場合があります。この様な契約を交わしていませんか?

「不公正な契約条項」とは? 「不公正」と見做された契約条項は、豪州の裁判所では強制力を持たない。契約条項が以下の定義を満たした場合、ASIC法または消費者保護法(Competition and Consumer Act 2010)(ACL)の基づき、「不公正」であると判断される: 1. その条項が、契約当事者間の権利および義務に、著しい不均衡を引き起こすこと; 2. その条項により利益を得る契約当事者の正当な利益を保護するために、合理的に必要ないこと; 3.

詳しく見る