New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

High court rules r31.11

Legal area

Court

15 Apr 2020

MAIN RD HOLDINGS LTD v THOR CONSTRUCTION GROUP LTD [2020] NZHC 745

Citation

[2020] NZHC 745
Court

High Court

The Court found there was a genuine and arguable dispute about the recoverability of the bulk of MRH's claim (the late completion amounts alleged to be penalties) and TCG's solvency was not conclusively established; accordingly a permanent stay of the winding up proceeding and prohibition on advertising was ordered conditional on TCG paying the undisputed sum of $18,885.64 within ten working days, failing which MRH's application would proceed and the stay would not be granted.
17 Jun 2014

SHAW v GLOBE HOLDINGS LTD [2014] NZHC 1360

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1360
Court

High Court

Globe failed to establish a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the statutory demand process to continue: the invoices were properly rendered to Globe under the engagement letter, Globe's alleged offset (a claim by related company Seaside for GST penalties) was tenuous, unpleaded and unsupported by evidence of negligence or steps taken to bring the related claims, and the modest quantum meant there was insufficient prejudice to justify a stay or restraint on advertising.
26 Feb 2013

DTB CONSTRUCTION LTD V HOLDGATE HC AK CIV-2013-404-426

Citation

openlaw-673a6d8f_c8c3_4392_acc6_231c59b19e91.pdf
Court

High Court

On the material before the Court there was not a genuine and substantial dispute as to the existence of a debt owing to Holdgate: the payment claim was treated as posted to DCL's postal address and the evidence (including an email signed 'Doug Taylor DTB Construction Limited') supported that DCL could have engaged Holdgate; accordingly the application to stay liquidation proceedings and restrain advertising under r31.11 was refused and the winding up proceedings may continue.
7 Nov 2012

W & W CONSTRUCTION 2010 LIMITED V LANWOOD INDUSTRIES LIMITED HC WANG CIV-2012-483-340

Citation

openlaw-d5840fad_e39e_4ee6_813c_b7f30124adb6.pdf
Court

High Court

Because r 31.11 requires applications for a stay and to restrain advertising to be made on notice and within five working days of service and no service details were provided, the Court ordered that any application for a stay or restraint must be pursued on notice; to preserve the parties' positions the Court granted an interim restraint on publication of the liquidation advertisement until further order and directed urgent procedural steps to progress the matter.
10 Aug 2010

CANAN CONSTRUCTION LTD V ORMISTON HOSPITAL INVESTMENT LTD HC AK CIV 2010-404-000291

Citation

openlaw-ad63b8ab_77d3_4a28_a8a2_aa82c0d2f11c.pdf
Court

High Court

On the material before the court there was no genuine and substantial dispute as to the sum claimed by the plaintiff under the Construction Contracts Act 2002; accordingly the defendant's r31.11 application to stay the liquidation proceeding and restrain advertising was refused and the liquidation proceeding was adjourned to allow payment or completion of advertising; costs reserved.
16 Jul 2010

AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL V CITILAND LTD HC AK CIV 2010-404-004075

Citation

openlaw-01c1934b_e896_4752_a2d8_e94b149613dd.pdf
Court

High Court

A limited stay under r31.11 was justified because the debt was not disputed, the defendant demonstrated on the material before the court that it would be able to pay by the settlement date of 31 August 2010, and granting a limited stay to that date would not prejudice the plaintiff; accordingly stay and restraint of advertising to 31 August 2010 was ordered and the substantive proceeding adjourned.
6 Jul 2010

RICCARTON CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V COLJON LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-000848

Citation

openlaw-ff50e32b_9f96_466f_a2b9_b7ed23f00f3c.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held there was no genuine and substantial dispute as to the judgment debt given the clear findings in the 4 March 2010 judgment; procedural irregularities (failure to file a verifying affidavit and initial delay) were curable under r1.5 and did not nullify the proceeding; Riccarton had not shown clear and persuasive grounds to justify a stay and the balance of convenience favoured Coljon, therefore the application for stay was dismissed.
23 Jul 2009

KERMANI PROPERTIES LIMITED V PINK DOLL LIMITED HC AK CIV 2009-404-004113

Citation

openlaw-0f8a4627_0452_4a00_a25c_b494d6074569.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the defendant's case on the merits was weak and it had not complied with the statutory demand, the Court granted an interim restraint on advertising because the risk of irreparable harm to the defendant and the minimal prejudice to the plaintiff (given available advertising time) meant the balance of convenience favoured restraint until the stay application was heard; order to expire on 6 August 2009 unless extended.