SOL TRUSTEES LIMITED v GILES CIVIL LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1813

SOL TRUSTEES LIMITED v GILES CIVIL LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1813

The spreadsheet proffered by Sol did not specify a scheduled amount or unequivocally convey the monetary extent of the dispute as required by s 21; the terse emails did not cure that deficiency or cross-reference the spreadsheet; therefore Sol did not deliver valid payment schedules to Payment Claims 13 and 14 and no substantial dispute under s 290(4)(a) was established, so the applications to set aside the statutory demands were declined.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 1813
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Sol Trustees Limited; Defendant/respondent: Giles Civil Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
4 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 290 Companies Act 1993 to Set Aside Statutory Demands Arising From Construction Contracts Act Payment Claims / Judgment (application Hearing Concluded)
Outcome
Applications to set aside the statutory demands declined; statutory demands stand subject to extended time for compliance
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Payment Claim, Payment Schedule, Set Off, Liquidated Damages, Construction Contracts Act Compliance
Company Law Construction Law Contract Law Insolvency Law Statutory Demand Payment Claim Payment Schedule Set Off +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sol Trustees Limited

Plaintiff/applicant

Giles Civil Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 290 Companies Act 1993 to Set Aside Statutory Demands Arising From Construction Contracts Act Payment Claims / Judgment (application Hearing Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sol delivered valid payment schedules in response to Payment Claims 13 and 14 such that there is a substantial dispute under s 290(4)(a)
  2. 2 Whether Sol could rely on set-off/counterclaim for liquidated damages as part of a payment schedule
  3. 3 Whether the repetition of payment claims constituted abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The spreadsheet proffered by Sol did not specify a scheduled amount or unequivocally convey the monetary extent of the dispute as required by s 21; the terse emails did not cure that deficiency or cross-reference the spreadsheet; therefore Sol did not deliver valid payment schedules to Payment Claims 13 and 14 and no substantial dispute under s 290(4)(a) was established, so the applications to set aside the statutory demands were declined.

Court Disposition

Applications to set aside the statutory demands declined; statutory demands stand subject to extended time for compliance

Orders

  • Costs awarded to Giles Civil Limited on a 2B basis plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar