28 Nov 2016
The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide evidence of assignment or any other substantial ground; the Bank was shown to be the legal owner of the Disputes Tribunal debt and entitled to enforce it, and the other alleged grounds (failure to negotiate, impact on other creditors, public interest) did not justify setting aside the notice.
21 Mar 2011
The application was adjourned for two weeks to permit the debtor to pay the outstanding debt because, although the debtor committed an act of bankruptcy by failing to comply with the Bankruptcy Notice, the evidence of solvency was unverified and the debtor had provided some security ($5,000) and claimed substantial assets; therefore adjournment rather than immediate adjudication was the appropriate exercise of the Court's discretion.
11 May 2010
The defendant was entitled to costs on its ancillary application because it was necessary to recover monies it was contractually and court-ordered entitled to; however the conduct did not meet the high threshold for indemnity costs, so costs were awarded on the Category 2B scale totalling $2,080.00 plus a $200.00 court filing disbursement.
3 Jun 2009
Ascot failed to set aside the statutory demand and did not provide sufficient credible evidence of payment or solvency; the presumption of insolvency under s387 therefore applied and there were no special or exceptional factors established to justify reopening the dispute or exercising the Court's discretion against liquidation; consequently the Court ordered Ascot into liquidation and appointed a liquidator.
20 Feb 2008
The High Court exercised its reserved leave to order release of the funds held on deposit and held that the defendant is entitled to the portion awarded by the Disputes Tribunal together with pro rata interest earned on that portion since the funds were deposited on 24 August 2007; the remainder plus its proportionate interest is to be paid to the plaintiff.
11 Jun 2007
Because the Disputes Tribunal judgment remained unchallenged and unpaid, the statutory demand based on that judgment was valid; the defendant filed no material on solvency and offered no defence by way of setting aside the underlying judgment, so the company was presumed insolvent and the court ordered liquidation with appointment of the Official Assignee and costs to the plaintiff.