RISECORP INVESTMENT TRUSTEE LIMITED v STAYWELL HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1552
The Court will adopt a broad approach under r 14.2 when awarding costs on an application to set aside a statutory demand, will not undertake a fine‑grained analysis of the extent of failure or quantify the debt under s 290(4), and the applicant's schedule of 2B costs is approved.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] NZHC 1552
- Parties
- Applicant: RISECORP INVESTMENT TRUSTEE LIMITED; Respondent: STAYWELL HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LIMITED
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 6 July 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Application to Set Aside a Statutory Demand / Costs Judgment
- Outcome
- Costs awarded to the applicant; applicant's 2B costs schedule approved
- Legal Topics
- Statutory Demand, Set Aside, Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
RISECORP INVESTMENT TRUSTEE LIMITED
Applicant
STAYWELL HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LIMITED
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside a Statutory Demand / Costs Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a fine-grained analysis of the extent of a party's failure is required when awarding costs on an application to set aside a statutory demand
- 2 Whether s 290(4) of the Companies Act 1993 requires the Court to determine the quantum of debt when deciding whether a substantial dispute exists
- 3 Appropriate approach to awarding costs under High Court Rules r 14.2
Ratio Decidendi
The Court will adopt a broad approach under r 14.2 when awarding costs on an application to set aside a statutory demand, will not undertake a fine‑grained analysis of the extent of failure or quantify the debt under s 290(4), and the applicant's schedule of 2B costs is approved.
Court Disposition
Costs awarded to the applicant; applicant's 2B costs schedule approved
Orders
- Applicant awarded costs on a 2B basis as set out in the schedule annexed to Ms Cooper's memorandum
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
RISECORP INVESTMENT TRUSTEE LIMITED v STAYWELL HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1552 [6 July 2015]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2015-404-501[2015] NZHC 1552UNDER the Companies Act 1993IN THE MATTER of an application to set aside a statutorydemandBETWEEN RISECORP INVESTMENT TRUSTEELIMITEDApplicantAND STAYWELL HOSPITALITYMANAGEMENT LIMITEDRespondentHearing: 28 May 2015Appearances: Ms J S Cooper for ApplicantMr D T Broadmore for Respondent(on papers)Judgment: 6 July 2015COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE J P DOOGUEThis judgment was delivered by me on06.07.15 at 4 pm, pursuant toRule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarDate[1] I thank counsel for the helpful memoranda they have both filed concerning the matter of costs.[2] The view I take is that a broad approach should be taken as to which part has failed which is a relevant matter to take into account pursuant to r 14.2. I do not consider that fine-grained analyses of the extent by which the party failed are called for under the Rules. To take such an approach would derivate from the principle stated at r 14.2(g) that so far as possible the determination of costs should bepredictable and expeditious.[3] If the Court were to exceed to such an approach it would also be put in a position of having to make a decision supplementary to the main decision determining which debts were legitimately claimed for and which not. I do not consider that it is feasible for the Court to resolve those sort of disputes when considering an application to set aside a statutory demand.[4] The terms of s 290(4) of the Company's Act 1993 direct the Court todetermine whether there is a substantial dispute whether or not the debt is owing or due. I do not consider that it also requires the Court to go on and determine, in the event that the conclusion is that there is a substantial debt, how much of the debt claimed was due.[5] For those reasons I accept the submissions of the applicant and approve the2B costs set out in the schedule annexed to Ms Cooper's memorandum._____________J.P. DoogueAssociate Judge