New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Counterclaim/cross-demand

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2016

RUSSMA LIMITED v J LI AND FAST RENTAL LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1442

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1442
Court

High Court

The applicant provided sufficient evidential basis and an arguable cross-demand under s 290(4)(b) such that the statutory demand should be set aside; earlier judicial findings that there was at least a serious question to be tried and that the interim injunctions were proper supported the existence of a genuine and substantial dispute to defeat the presumption of insolvency and justify setting aside the demand.
24 Nov 2014

VHH LTD v RUSKIN HOLDINGS LTD [2014] NZHC 2919

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2919
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because VHH demonstrated an apparent counterclaim under clause 10.4 of the subcontract (SA-2009) for liquidated damages of about $11,500, which exceeds the statutory demand of $11,380.73, thereby satisfying s 290(4)(b) of the Companies Act and making the demand liable to be set aside.
24 Apr 2013

HURUNUI HOTEL (2004) LIMITED V R E STRONG, N A STRONG AND A L S SIMPSON HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-002817

Citation

openlaw-cb96a6e8_c65d_4d1b_9784_8a22392e7833.pdf
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to demonstrate a cross-demand quantified to at least the amount of the statutory demand; the lessee's evidence of loss was mere assertion without satisfactory quantification or justification for the absence of quantification on its own financial records; residual discretion did not apply; therefore the application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed and costs awarded to the respondents.

New Zealand Case Law

RUSSMA LIMITED v J LI AND FAST RENTAL LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1442

VHH LTD v RUSKIN HOLDINGS LTD [2014] NZHC 2919

HURUNUI HOTEL (2004) LIMITED V R E STRONG, N A STRONG AND A L S SIMPSON HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-002817