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.
31 Jul 2009
I-Health failed to show good reason to depart from the presumption that a plaintiff who discontinues must pay costs; Isoft NZ reasonably opposed the applications on genuine jurisdictional and scope grounds; increased costs were not justified, therefore standard 2B costs plus costs for the costs memorandum and disbursement were awarded to Isoft NZ.
29 May 2009
The application to set aside the statutory demand was not served by any method authorised by s389(1); the additional contact details on a cover sheet did not amount to an agreement to accept service by fax or email; strict compliance with s389 is required and non-compliance renders the application a nullity, so the application is struck out.