New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Companies act 1993

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2022

STEELCRAFT STRUCTURAL LTD v A 2 Z NZ POWERCOM LTD [2022] NZHC 2017

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2017
Court

High Court

Powercom failed to serve a payment schedule to the s20 payment claim and did not comply with the s289 statutory demand, creating the statutory presumption of insolvency which it did not rebut because its financial statements were outdated; cross-claims and alleged defects could not defeat recovery under the CCA without a payment schedule, therefore the court adjourned to allow payment but will order liquidation if the debt is not paid by the stated date.
10 Jun 2021

SINGH v PATEL [2021] NZCA 242

Citation

[2021] NZCA 242
Court

Court of Appeal

Appeal dismissed because there was no evidence STA maintained a share register and no entry was made removing the appellant as shareholder; the respondents' lodgement of notices with the Companies Office did not divest ownership or deprive the appellant of possession or dominion of the shares, so the elements of conversion were not established.
20 Jun 2019

BALLANTYNE TRUSTEES LIMITED v HFK LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1425

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1425
Court

High Court

Although the plaintiffs' delay was inordinate and in part inexcusable, the defendants failed to demonstrate the requisite prejudice from post-issue delay and the proceeding could still be tried fairly on largely documentary evidence; therefore the Associate Judge's decision declining to strike out was not wrong in principle or based on unsupportable fact findings and the review is dismissed.
7 Dec 2016

STARTUP v THE VILLAGE PRESS LTD [2016] NZHC 2957

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2957
Court

High Court

The without‑notice orders of 9 November 2016 were discharged because the plaintiffs' application contained materially inadequate and misleading information and they had come to the Court without clean hands; having received further confidential financial information the Court accepted the defendants' case that urgent capital was required and therefore rescinded the without‑notice restraint but left substantive rights and potential relief to be determined in the main proceeding.
18 Dec 2013

REDCLIFFE FORESTRY VENTURE LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZHC 3468

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3468
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's application was groundless and part of a long pattern of repetitive, hopeless challenges to established tax assessments; given the factual and legal inevitability of dismissal in light of prior decisions and the conduct amounting to vexatious and unnecessary litigation, indemnity costs were justified and should be awarded; accordingly the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of $16,269 plus disbursements of $1,916.83.
26 Jan 2012

MCWILLIAM CONSULTING GROUP LIMITED V KEITH USSHER ARCHITECTURE SERVICES LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-002007

Citation

openlaw-ade63107_8e66_41b7_af18_146dbfeff094.pdf
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was improperly issued given clear, substantial disputes previously notified and the respondent should have withdrawn the demand or pursued ordinary debt recovery; accordingly the Court set aside the demand and awarded increased costs under r14.6, applying a 100% uplift to 2B scale costs, totaling NZD 10,904 plus disbursements NZD 483.40.
30 Nov 2011

GRANT v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 96/2011

Citation

SC 96/2011
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants had no real prospect of success on the primary issue: the Court agreed with the Court of Appeal that the chairman was not empowered to exercise a casting vote to secure approval where creditors in number formed a majority but represented less than the 75% value threshold required by Part 15A of the Companies Act 1993, and the appeal could not succeed unless both issues were won.
4 Aug 2008

TRELISE COOPER LIMITED V COOPER WATKINSON TEXTILES LIMITED HC AK CIV2007-404-004307

Citation

openlaw-92da1296_59d7_4108_ab67_66150032c3db.pdf
Court

High Court

Applying s290 Companies Act 1993 and the court's interim findings, the court reduced the statutory demands to specified amounts, set aside the balance, ordered payment by the stated deadline, and permitted the creditor to apply for liquidation if payment was not made.
24 Apr 2008

WEALAND INTERNATIONAL (NZ) LTD V COMPLETE FIRST AID SUPPLIES LTD HC AK CIV 2008-404-1371

Citation

openlaw-452d4596_df85_4f51_99d5_b50461138d93.pdf
Court

High Court

The omission of the court file number and hearing date on the served copy was a procedural defect rather than a jurisdictional nullity because the application had been filed within time; although the Court has power to cure defective service, the discretion should not be exercised here given the applicant's delay in remedying the defect, deficiencies in the affidavit of service, procedural breaches and the weak merits of the substantive dispute; accordingly the application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed.
11 Oct 2007

CP WYNDHAM STREET HOTEL HOLDINGS LIMITED V HAMES SHARLEY INTERNATIONAL LIMITED HC AK CIV 2007-404-003376

Citation

openlaw-4371c456_09e6_4153_8651_49364c720105.pdf
Court

High Court

The respondent company acted improperly by issuing a statutory demand despite no contractual basis and apparently without solicitor authority and with a signature purporting to be the solicitor; those facts satisfy r 48C(4)(a) as conduct that justifies indemnity costs, so the respondent must pay the applicant's costs as claimed ($9,196, including disbursements).