21 Dec 2023
Because the respondent withdrew the statutory demand without condition before filing opposition or evidence, requiring the applicant to discontinue the originating application, it was just to award costs to the applicant; the r 15.23 presumption was displaced by the respondent's withdrawal and costs were awarded on a 2B basis plus disbursements.
28 Nov 2023
IANZ raised specific, contemporaneous and substantive disputes about the scope, quality and quantum of the work prior to the statutory demand; those disputes were sufficiently genuine and substantial such that the statutory demand could not be upheld in summary proceedings and should be set aside, with any quantification left to ordinary proceedings (eg Disputes Tribunal).
8 Nov 2023
Indemnity or increased costs were not justified because AD International's conduct did not meet the high threshold of being bad or very unreasonable; NZ Superfood as successful party was awarded adjusted 2B scale costs with specific reductions (item 11 removed) and the process‑server disbursement allowed; final award was $11,472.00 in 2B costs plus $1,442.66 disbursements totalling $12,914.66.
28 Jun 2023
The Court set aside the statutory demand by consent because the underlying Employment Court challenge and the Employment Court stay conditioned on payment into Court meant the statutory demand's enforcement was inappropriate; the parties agreed the demand should be vacated and costs were reserved to be dealt with on the papers.
29 May 2023
The Court granted the judgment debtor's application and set aside the bankruptcy notice because the circumstances matched the reasoning and legal conclusions in Xing v Wang [2023] NZHC 1273, making it appropriate to set the notice aside; costs are to be dealt with as referenced in the earlier decision.
29 May 2023
The Court granted the judgment debtor's application to set aside the bankruptcy notice, applying the reasoning set out in Xing v Wang [2023] NZHC 1273; accordingly the notice is set aside and costs are to be dealt with as referenced in that decision.
28 Mar 2023
The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice is dismissed because the Court found the documentary requirements under sch 1 art 35(2) had been complied with or were finally determined by prior High Court and Court of Appeal decisions, the omission to annex the sealed order to the served notice was inadvertent and caused no prejudice, service was valid, and no genuine triable cross-claim was established; accordingly there was no basis to set aside the notice and indemnity costs are appropriate.
27 Feb 2023
Dismissal of the application because the alleged counterclaim had already been raised and rejected in the District Court and therefore did not constitute a genuine triable cross-claim; the bankruptcy notice was properly formed with a certified sealed order attached; the Deputy Registrar's instalment order did not create an implied stay because the creditor had not been given the opportunity to be heard and the debtor did not comply strictly with its terms.
12 Dec 2022
The court held it was just and equitable to displace the presumption in r 15.23 given that KKM acted reasonably in commencing the application and the respondent failed to engage in the proceedings; however neither party was more successful than the other and therefore no costs order should be made and costs should lie where they fall.
29 Apr 2022
Bundle preparation costs disallowed because applicant failed to comply with the direction to file the common bundle with submissions and the respondent had already filed a bundle making applicant's late bundle unnecessary; air travel reimbursed for one counsel only (second counsel travel disallowed); costs awarded to applicant $10,516.00 and disbursements $2,067.74 (total $12,583.74); application for stay of the costs award pending appeal declined.