New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Construction contracts act 2002 s79

Legal area

Court

23 Nov 2015

TEAK CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v ANDREW BRANDS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2924

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2924
Court

High Court

Because the parties had effectively submitted disputes to arbitration the plaintiff's proceeding was struck out; the defendant, as successful party, is entitled to costs overall under High Court Rule 14.2(a), but the Court exercised its Rule 14.1 discretion to disallow specific claimed items (deleted entitlement to items 22 and 8 in the amended schedule) while allowing photocopying, the Standards NZ purchase, and the registered valuer disbursement as reasonably necessary; leave reserved for further directions.
12 Oct 2015

HALEY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v EVOLVING PROJECTS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2490

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2490
Court

High Court

The application for a stay was dismissed because, applying the Construction Contracts Act's 'pay now, argue later' regime and s79, the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case of a genuine dispute on substantial grounds sufficient to justify staying liquidation; the District Court judgment was final and unappealed, the counterclaim was late and of uncertain prospects, Evolving had not used available CC Act dispute procedures and did not produce compelling financial evidence to show that liquidation would be inappropriate or render the counterclaim irrecoverable.
7 May 2012

MCALPINE HUSSMANN LIMITED V COOKE INDUSTRIES LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-5663

Citation

openlaw-e9a5af9a_51dc_4fd6_ab46_0de20df84e81.pdf
Court

High Court

The court accepted the $400/hr rate as appropriate, held that the attendances shortly before the payment schedule were legitimately for debt recovery, and concluded that the solicitor/client costs of $10,100 (excluding GST) were objectively reasonable and payable by the applicant.
27 Apr 2007

INSITE DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED V JOHN SADLER HC AK CIV2006-404-4528

Citation

openlaw-e3f2114c_967c_4257_89dd_b8bfb8e8d20f.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the Court accepted the debtor had a triable counterclaim exceeding the judgment debt, the debtor failed to show he could not have set up that counterclaim in the summary judgment proceeding because he did not comply with the payment schedule requirements (s 21) and offered no cogent excuse; therefore s 19(1)(d) relief and inherent jurisdiction relief were not available and the bankruptcy notice was not set aside.
16 Nov 2006

KIZER BUILDERS LIMITED V OEC CONSTRUCTION LIMITED HC WN CIV-2006-485-2287

Citation

openlaw-80f89801_74b5_4acf_8ac3_d4f749d8df37.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 79 of the Construction Contracts Act 2002 applies to statutory demand and liquidation proceedings and precludes the defendant from relying on counterclaims or set-offs in those proceedings; the defendant failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute on substantial grounds and had not acted to set aside the statutory demand or the District Court default judgment, so the stay and restraint were refused.

New Zealand Case Law

TEAK CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v ANDREW BRANDS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2924

HALEY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v EVOLVING PROJECTS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2490

MCALPINE HUSSMANN LIMITED V COOKE INDUSTRIES LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-5663

INSITE DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT LIMITED V JOHN SADLER HC AK CIV2006-404-4528

KIZER BUILDERS LIMITED V OEC CONSTRUCTION LIMITED HC WN CIV-2006-485-2287