Yes, this sentence is valid. Possibly more so for a table or a footnote, or where there are many tests to report and it clear to which the parameters mentioned refer. That said, depending on the context, there are better ways to communicate non-significance. I would recommend always fully writing out the sentence naming the parameters/variables with hypotheses, to which you refer to in the content of the results section. Note also, the full statistic and its value, in addition to the p value is the best way to write up a result.

Dear Piyush Lakhani,

whether this sentence makes sense or not depends on the context, here are 2 relevant scenarios.

1. If the relevant level of statistical significance in the corresponding study is 0.05 and this particular comparison does not require any correction (see point 2 below), then it's probably a typo, and the correct expression should be "p > 0.05" (not "p < 0.05"). These kinds of typos do happen. 

2. The second scenario is the one Michelle B. Cowley seems to refer to, i.e., where the relevant alpha level for statistical significance is smaller than 0.05.  Some studies define the relevant alpha level as 0.01 (instead of 0.05), so a p-value of 0.03 does not count as significant.  Another scenario of this kind would be a an analysis with multiple groups (say Group A, Group B, and Group C). Here, pair-wise comparisons among all groups involve 3 separate tests (Groups A/B, Groups A/C, Groups B/C). To protect against Type-1 errors, you would need to adjust the alpha-level, e.g., using a Bonferroni correction that requires you to divide the original alpha-level (0.05) by the number of comparisons, such that the new alpha-level is 0.05/3 = 0.0166. Once again, here a p-value of 0.03 for the pairwise comparison between Group A and Group B would be viewed as non-significant (although it is 

Based on your attachment, it seems like a typo (i.e., scenario # 1).