New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set aside procedure

Legal area

Court

5 Feb 2020

Q & K PROCTOR LTD v THE AGRI COMPANY LTD [2020] NZHC 73

Citation

[2020] NZHC 73
Court

High Court

There was a substantial and genuine dispute as to whether Q & K owed the debt in the statutory demand because evidence established a contested contractual allocation of invoicing responsibility (agreement to reinstate Fresh Direct invoicing, corroborating email, and Q & K payments to Fresh Direct for the relevant deliveries); accordingly the statutory demand was set aside under s 290(4)(a).
22 Mar 2016

MEDITRADE LIMITED v ALCARIN LIMITED [2016] NZHC 497

Citation

[2016] NZHC 497
Court

High Court

The court found that although Markov had authority to issue the statutory demand at the time of issuance, subsequent revocation by the sole director and the explicit expiry of the power of attorney on 7 November 2015 meant Markov lacked authority to oppose the application; the power was not irrevocable because it was not coupled with an interest, therefore steps taken purportedly on behalf of Alcarin to oppose are treated as not filed, and on the uncontested evidence the statutory demand was to be set aside.
21 Feb 2013

XTRA HEALTH PTY LIMITED V HERBAL CARE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC DUN CIV-2012-412-000536

Citation

openlaw-2bfce93f_0183_4343_a567_b3b0f97dc80d.pdf
Court

High Court

The applicants satisfied the statutory and rules-based evidentiary requirements for registration by producing a certified sealed copy of the Queensland judgment, proving service, swearing that the judgment was unsatisfied and enforceable in Queensland, and providing exchange rate and interest calculations; accordingly the High Court must register the foreign judgment and may impose the usual period to apply to set aside and stay enforcement pending that period.
7 Nov 2011

MAGSONS HARDWARE LTD V CONCEPTS 124 LTD COA CA671/2010

Citation

COA CA671/2010
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal because the Associate Judge erred in making affirmative factual findings that the payments were made under economic duress in the context of a summary statutory demand proceeding on affidavit evidence; the existence of duress is primarily a factual inquiry requiring fuller examination (including potential cross-examination) and was not appropriately resolved in that procedure, so the statutory demand should have been set aside.
10 Dec 2009

DELANY TRANSPORT LTD V STEEL HC NEL CIV-2009-442-404

Citation

openlaw-3944c1ab_47b6_46c5_8a71_3a85951f215a.pdf
Court

High Court

No substantial dispute existed that the company owed the advances and relationship property litigation did not bar Ms Steel enforcing her share; the statutory demand was therefore not wholly set aside but was set aside to the extent of amounts attributable to Mr Delany, leaving $65,390.55 payable, and the time for compliance was extended to 22 January 2010; costs awarded to Ms Steel on a Category 2B basis.

New Zealand Case Law

Q & K PROCTOR LTD v THE AGRI COMPANY LTD [2020] NZHC 73

MEDITRADE LIMITED v ALCARIN LIMITED [2016] NZHC 497

XTRA HEALTH PTY LIMITED V HERBAL CARE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC DUN CIV-2012-412-000536

MAGSONS HARDWARE LTD V CONCEPTS 124 LTD COA CA671/2010

DELANY TRANSPORT LTD V STEEL HC NEL CIV-2009-442-404