Q & K PROCTOR LTD v THE AGRI COMPANY LTD [2020] NZHC 73

Q & K PROCTOR LTD v THE AGRI COMPANY LTD [2020] NZHC 73

There was a substantial and genuine dispute as to whether Q & K owed the debt in the statutory demand because evidence established a contested contractual allocation of invoicing responsibility (agreement to reinstate Fresh Direct invoicing, corroborating email, and Q & K payments to Fresh Direct for the relevant deliveries); accordingly the statutory demand was set aside under s 290(4)(a).

Citation
[2020] NZHC 73
Parties
Plaintiff (applicant): Q & K Proctor Limited; Defendant (respondent): The Agri Company Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
5 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand Under Companies Act 1993 / High Court Judgment on Application Under S 290(4)(a) (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application granted: statutory demand set aside (except Q & K accepted liability for the supply/delivery on 20 April 2019 under invoice 554)
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Companies Act S 290, Substantial and Genuine Dispute, Set Aside Procedure, Commercial Supply Contracts
Company Law Insolvency Contract Law Civil Procedure Statutory Demand Companies Act S 290 Substantial and Genuine Dispute Set Aside Procedure +1 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Q & K Proctor Limited

Plaintiff (applicant)

The Agri Company Limited

Defendant (respondent)

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Statutory Demand Under Companies Act 1993 / High Court Judgment on Application Under S 290(4)(a) (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a substantial and genuine dispute under s 290(4)(a) of the Companies Act 1993 that the debt claimed in the statutory demand is owing
  2. 2 Whether Q & K contracted with Fresh Direct Ltd or directly with Agri Company Ltd for the egg supplies
  3. 3 Whether Agri agreed to Fresh Direct invoicing Q & K and whether Q & K paid Fresh Direct for the deliveries covered by invoices 553 and 554

Ratio Decidendi

There was a substantial and genuine dispute as to whether Q & K owed the debt in the statutory demand because evidence established a contested contractual allocation of invoicing responsibility (agreement to reinstate Fresh Direct invoicing, corroborating email, and Q & K payments to Fresh Direct for the relevant deliveries); accordingly the statutory demand was set aside under s 290(4)(a).

Court Disposition

Application granted: statutory demand set aside (except Q & K accepted liability for the supply/delivery on 20 April 2019 under invoice 554)

Orders

  • Statutory demand dated 1 May 2019 set aside
  • Agri Company Ltd to pay costs to Q & K Proctor Ltd on a 2B basis and disbursements as fixed by the Registrar