9 Jun 2021
Applicant failed to produce material establishing an arguable genuine and substantial dispute about the indebtedness claimed; therefore the statutory demand could not be set aside. Any irregularity in service was waived or appropriately regularised under High Court Rules r1.5 and r19.12A because the creditor was notified and not prejudiced.
10 Aug 2020
The application was dismissed because the costs order of $43,133 remained an unsatisfied judgment debt; payments by receivers to BNZ covered BNZ's legal invoices but did not discharge the judgment debt; FTG failed to adduce evidence of solvency or a genuine substantial dispute under s290(4)(a) and did not establish other grounds to justify setting aside the demand under s290(4)(c).
17 Dec 2015
There was a genuine and substantial dispute as to whether the parties agreed an unconditional cancellation and refund of the $35,000 deposit; even if the Trust validly cancelled, the Trust's claim for repayment of the deposit is likely an unliquidated claim for damages (not a 'debt due') rather than a readily liquidated restitutionary debt; accordingly the statutory demand was properly set aside under s290(4).
2 Dec 2013
The applications were dismissed because the tax assessments underpinning the statutory demands had been finally upheld on appeal (no substantial dispute), the Commissioner is authorised to issue statutory demands as a step in recovery litigation under s156, and no abuse of process or exceptional ground under s290(4)(c) justified setting the demands aside; the plaintiffs were ordered to pay specified sums within ten working days or face liquidation applications.
23 Mar 2011
The application is dismissed because the debt was based on self-assessments which are not challengeable outside the statutory objection/challenge regime (s109); the applicant failed to demonstrate a genuine and substantial dispute about the debt, failed to establish exceptional circumstances under s89K to justify a late challenge given agent-related failures, and failed to show sufficient grounds under s113 for the Commissioner to amend the assessments; accordingly the statutory demand stands and the applicant must pay.
14 May 2010
Service of the application by fax did not comply with s389 and was therefore ineffective; Rule 1.9 cannot cure non‑compliance with a specific statutory service requirement and s290’s time limits could not be extended in the circumstances, so the application to set aside the statutory demand must be dismissed.
8 Feb 2010
The board's appointment of a liquidator on 29 October 2009 was a nullity because Superfurn Pukekohe had no constitution authorising board appointment under s241(2)(b); the applicant's evidence of a joint venture and payments did not meet the threshold of a substantial dispute under s290(4); accordingly the Court set aside the purported liquidation and, finding the debt due and unpaid, ordered Superfurn Pukekohe into liquidation under s291(1)(b) and appointed liquidators.
31 Jul 2008
Contemporaneous documents and course of dealings established Pipers had authority for the vast majority of the billed work; AAT failed to meet the onus to show a credible dispute except in respect of invoice 072165; consequently the s290 application is dismissed and the statutory demand stands subject to an extension of time to allow payment of the specified sum.
2 Jul 2008
No substantial dispute existed because there was no acceptance creating a binding agreement to surrender the lease and waive the debt, no executed deed of surrender was produced where the parties intended a written document, and the respondent's re-entry was lawful; therefore the statutory demand was not set aside.
30 May 2007
Section 79 of the CCA does not apply to statutory demand setting-aside applications or liquidation proceedings; a statutory demand is not itself a 'proceeding for recovery of a debt' under s79, so the court may give effect to bona fide counterclaims and set-offs when deciding s290 applications. Applying that principle, the Court set aside the statutory demands against Favona Developments Ltd, Pacific Bridge Ltd and Silverpoint International Ltd and dismissed McLaughlin Park Ltd's applications except to the extent acknowledged, leaving MPL liable for a net admitted sum.