2 May 2017
The Court found there was a genuine and substantial dispute as to the 2016 invoice liability; accordingly the statutory demand was set aside under s290. There was insufficient evidence of insolvency to make a winding up order and no basis to stay the proceedings; interlocutory relief limited to directions and maintenance of an existing advertising restraint pending further steps.
12 May 2016
The plaintiff established on the balance of probabilities that a debt of at least $532,783 existed, but the cause of action arose when the advance was made (circa 2004) so limitation began then; the plaintiff failed to show a valid acknowledgement by the defendant sufficient to restart limitation and failed to prove fraudulent concealment; the evidence did not establish persistent or serious statutory non-compliance justifying winding up; accordingly the liquidation application was dismissed.
11 Aug 2014
The Commissioner is a creditor entitled to commence liquidation proceedings (supported by s 156 TAA and the Companies Act context); there is no abuse of process in seeking appointment of liquidators given affirmed Supreme Court assessments and the Commissioner's statutory duty to preserve tax system integrity; outstanding appeals and arguable futility do not justify a stay; the application to stay and restrain advertising is dismissed.
25 Jul 2014
Liquidation proceedings are a form of debt recovery and therefore fall within the Commissioner's statutory power to recover unpaid tax under s156 TAA; having regard to the Companies Act scheme, including s240, s241 and the priority afforded to tax in Schedule 7, the Commissioner is a 'creditor' for the purposes of s241(2)(c)(iv) and may apply for appointment of a liquidator without first obtaining a separate judgment; accordingly the defendants' strike out and stay applications are dismissed.
23 Jul 2009
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.
21 Jul 2009
The defendant had not paid the statutory demand nor provided evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of insolvency; its applications for extension of time and special leave were unmeritorious in light of the conduct and timing, and the Commissioner presented additional evidence of cash‑flow insolvency; accordingly special leave and extensions were refused and the Court concluded a winding up order was appropriate subject to final orders, and the Commissioner would retain standing even if the statutory demand sum were paid.
3 Apr 2009
The court held that the defendants owed substantial self-assessed GST liabilities that remained unpaid and, because s109 renders those assessments indisputable in these proceedings and the defendants provided no reliable, contemporary evidence of solvency, the unpaid debts justified the inference of cashflow insolvency under s241 of the Companies Act 1993; the pending judicial review had no real prospect of displacing the assessments, and consequently the court found insolvency and adjourned final liquidation orders to allow short opportunity for payment.