New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Construction contracts act 2002 adjudication

Legal area

Court

1 Mar 2019

CONDOR INTERNATIONAL LTD v STEELHAUS 2014 LTD [2019] NZHC 296

Citation

[2019] NZHC 296
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed because Condor failed to show a genuine and substantial dispute or other compelling grounds under s290(4); the adjudicator's factual findings and contract characterisation did not disclose jurisdictional error or apparent bias warranting intervention; s60 CCA renders the adjudicator's determination binding and enforceable pending any judicial review; Condor must pay $105,327.08 within five working days or Steelhaus may apply to put Condor into liquidation.
22 Mar 2018

Chappel v Swindells [2018] NZHC 506

Citation

[2018] NZHC 506
Court

High Court

Leave under s 248 was granted because the applicants were not seeking an undue advantage over other creditors, the adjudication challenge provided the only practicable means to establish entitlement to repayment, the claim was not clearly unsustainable, the liquidators had taken no procedural steps to resist the proceeding, and the timing of the liquidation suggested it was intended to frustrate the applicants' claim.
17 Feb 2011

STEVE MOWAT BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V BOAT HARBOUR HOLDINGS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV 2010-409-002698

Citation

openlaw-7f506de6_ffeb_4362_b183_f500933845f6.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found it was not plain that the prejudicial disposition argument could not succeed: there was a real prospect that the 18 August 2010 sale was an undervalue prejudicial disposition benefiting secured parties and shareholders at the expense of unsecured creditors. Given that and exercising the discretion under Land Transfer Act s143(2), the caveat was to be preserved subject to conditions (procure independent valuation within two months, plaintiff to initially fund valuation, and adding liquidators as second plaintiffs) rather than lapsing despite imperfect drafting.
19 Nov 2010

KARIITI LTD V DONOVAN DRAINAGE & EARTHMOVING LTD HC WHA CIV-2010-488-000613

Citation

openlaw-d62622e8_acab_4742_ad6d_48fe85d2bfb7.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendant failed to show both a high likelihood that the plaintiff would be unable to repay and a good arguable case on the merits; accordingly the statutory policy of immediate enforcement under the CCA prevailed and the application for a stay and restraint of advertising was dismissed; costs awarded to the plaintiff.
20 Feb 2008

PARKER CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (NZ) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V HORIZON INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC WN CIV 2007-485-1963

Citation

openlaw-99e22f31_084b_4043_8028_3b8a2c26cc93.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff held a sealed judgment for the adjudicator's determination, the funds in the independent solicitor's trust account were plainly the judgment debtor's and no reason was advanced to withhold enforcement, the Court struck out the liquidation proceeding and ordered a charging order absolute and the issue of a Writ of Sale to enforce the judgment.

New Zealand Case Law

CONDOR INTERNATIONAL LTD v STEELHAUS 2014 LTD [2019] NZHC 296

Chappel v Swindells [2018] NZHC 506

STEVE MOWAT BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V BOAT HARBOUR HOLDINGS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV 2010-409-002698

KARIITI LTD V DONOVAN DRAINAGE & EARTHMOVING LTD HC WHA CIV-2010-488-000613

PARKER CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (NZ) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V HORIZON INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC WN CIV 2007-485-1963