New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 290 companies act 1993

Legal area

Court

21 Jul 2021

PHI CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v INSIGHT PLUMBING (NZ) LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1847

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1847
Court

High Court

The Court set aside the statutory demand under s290 on the basis of the reasoning in the original judgment, declined to recall that judgment because the circumstances did not fall within the limited categories permitting recall, and awarded PHI scale costs for the successful set-aside application with a specific adjustment for jointly drafted material; no costs were awarded for the joint recall application and those costs were left to lie where they fell.
4 May 2020

MATAPIRO OLIVES (2008) LIMITED v THE OLIVE PRESS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 876

Citation

[2020] NZHC 876
Court

High Court

The parties' exchanged emails unambiguously created a contractual obligation requiring Matapiro to consign a minimum of 250 tonnes of olives in each season 2018–2020 in consideration for the discounted flat rate; Matapiro breached that obligation by consigning no fruit in 2019, justifying The Olive Press' invoice for the minimum amount, but the Court required further evidence on whether The Olive Press suffered net loss equal to the invoiced sum (i.e. whether cost savings reduced recoverable loss) and therefore did not finally set aside the statutory demand pending that further evidence.
25 Sept 2018

BENBRAK INVESTMENTS LIMITED v O’SHEA [2018] NZHC 2517

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2517
Court

High Court

There is a substantial dispute as to the debt because the evidence supports a real argument that the respondent was removed as director on 7 October 2017 and therefore his entitlement to fees is limited and far less than the statutory demand; accordingly the statutory demand is set aside.
26 Feb 2018

RENAISSANCE CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND FINANCE GROUP LTD v COOK STRAIT PROPERTIES LIMITED [2018] NZHC 242

Citation

[2018] NZHC 242
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside in part because the applicant established an arguable genuine and substantial dispute as to the post-1 July 2017 rental: holding-over requires consensual continuation and there were arguable factual indicia that possession had been given up so rent after 1 July was contested; make-good costs were paid thus that component was satisfied; the alleged oral full and final settlement was unenforceable as it was not performed and Cook Strait cancelled it; consequentially the demand was upheld only for a net June 2017 balance of $6,607.06 which the applicant was ord…
1 Dec 2017

BUILDFIRST LTD v BESPOKE SYSTEMS LTD [2017] NZHC 2971

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2971
Court

High Court

Contemporaneous quotes addressed to Buildfirst, subsequent acceptance emails in Buildfirst's name, and invoices issued to Buildfirst established arguable contracts between Buildfirst and Bespoke; there was no evidential foundation for an assignment, variation or estoppel transferring payment liability to Project 1 Design or the developer, and Bespoke had not been paid; therefore no substantial dispute was established and the statutory demand was not set aside.
12 Sept 2017

WHITESTONE POST LIMITED v C D LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2205

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2205
Court

High Court

The application was not served within the statutory time and was withdrawn; therefore the proceeding was treated as a nullity and, applying the general rule that a discontinuing party pays costs, the applicant must pay the respondent's costs in the sum awarded.
19 May 2016

L.R.M. BUILDERS LIMITED v JAMON CONSTRUCTION & CIVIL LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1059

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1059
Court

High Court

On the facts each party's conduct contributed to unnecessary litigation over an $11,725 disputed sum; in the exercise of the court's discretion under r 14.1 and having regard to s 290, neither party is entitled to costs and each must bear its own costs and disbursements.
10 May 2016

EDEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v STANLEY DAVID WILLIAMS [2016] NZHC 939

Citation

[2016] NZHC 939
Court

High Court

The court found the presumption of resulting trust applied and that the respondent had not produced sufficient contemporaneous evidence to rebut that presumption or to establish loan terms; material factual uncertainties and credibility issues meant there was a genuine and substantial dispute unsuitable for resolution on a setting aside application under s290, so the statutory demand was set aside.
23 Nov 2015

NEWSTOON NZ LIMITED v HORTON MEDIA LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2925

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2925
Court

High Court

The respondent's evidence was equivocal and contained unexplained handwritten adjustments to partial accounting records; the applicant demonstrated apparent inconsistencies amounting to a substantial dispute as to whether the debt was owing; the Court will not resolve factual disputes on a s 290 application and therefore the statutory demand must be set aside.
1 Sept 2015

BERNARD STREET PROPERTIES (2007) LTD v REBUILD AND REPAIR CANTERBURY LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2096

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2096
Court

High Court

Both statutory demands were set aside because issuing notices against both companies showed there was a substantive dispute as to which company owed the debt, rendering the s 289 procedure inappropriate; consequently both notices were flawed and must be set aside; costs awarded on a 2B basis for one proceeding plus 10% of 2B for specified steps in the second proceeding, and disbursements to each applicant; no uplift for abuse of process was awarded.