New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside statutory demand

Legal area

Court

23 Nov 2023

QUENTIN STOBART HAINES v ROY WILLIAM BASSETT-BURR [2023] NZCA 591

Citation

[2023] NZCA 591
Court

Court of Appeal

The recall application was declined because it was a relitigation of the merits, failed to identify any overlooked material or new evidence that would have altered the outcome, and therefore did not meet the threshold for recall; the applicant's remedy is to apply for leave to the Supreme Court. Costs were awarded to the respondent on a band A basis to reflect additional memorandum filings.
6 Oct 2023

AOTEAROA FORESTS LTD v LAND HAUL CONTRACTORS LTD [2023] NZHC 2803

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2803
Court

High Court

The Court recalled its earlier judgment and exercised its discretion to extend the period for compliance with the statutory demand (by 15 working days to 30 October 2023) because the failure to seek an extension at the hearing constituted an oversight amounting to a failure to refer a relevant legislative provision, permitting recall; on costs, a realistic appraisal of the outcome showed Land Haul had not fully succeeded given the unresolved ADR clause and a reasonably arguable counterclaim, so costs were ordered to lie where they fall.
23 Aug 2023

SUPER POWER EARTHMOVING LIMITED v DREAMHOME CONSTRUCTION GROUP LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2265

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2265
Court

High Court

Leave was granted because Dreamhome demonstrated a substantial and arguable dispute about the underlying debts and payment claims, provided a reasonable explanation for the delay (background dispute and holiday service), solvency was neutral (core debt paid into solicitor's trust) and the balance of prejudice and overall justice favoured allowing the defence to be filed out of time.
5 Apr 2023

MEGA CAPITAL GROUP LIMITED v PEARLFISHER CAPITAL LIMITED [2023] NZHC 749

Citation

[2023] NZHC 749
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the statutory demand was dismissed because Mega Capital failed to show it was reasonably arguable the credit contracts were oppressive under the CCCFA: Mega Capital was a sophisticated commercial borrower with legal and professional advice, fees and timing were disclosed and negotiated, Pearlfisher provided a commercially rational explanation for fee structure and risk, and the fees were not so excessive on their face in context to justify reopening the contracts; therefore there was no substantial dispute as required to set aside the statutory demand.
27 Jan 2023

RABOBANK NEW ZEALAND LTD v PHIILLIPS [2023] NZHC 118

Citation

[2023] NZHC 118
Court

High Court

Costs awarded to the applicant on a 2B scale with a 25% uplift because the applicant succeeded and the respondent failed to act reasonably by filing numerous irrelevant memoranda that caused additional costs; the threshold for indemnity costs was not met.
14 Dec 2022

RABOBANK NZ LTD v PHILLIPS [2022] NZHC 3390

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3390
Court

High Court

Leave to file a notice of opposition out of time was refused because Mr Phillips failed to show an arguable defence that he is a creditor or that any debt is due; on the uncontested merits Rabobank established a genuine and substantial dispute as to the existence of any debt and the statutory demand was therefore set aside under s 290 of the Companies Act 1993.
12 Aug 2022

ABCHAL INVESTMENTS LIMITED v SAINI [2022] NZHC 1954

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1954
Court

High Court

There are substantial and genuine factual conflicts about the nature of the transactions, the purchase price, and the existence and effect of alleged loan documents that cannot be resolved in the summary statutory demand proceeding on affidavit evidence alone; accordingly the statutory demands are set aside under s 290(4)(a).
17 Dec 2021

CAPITAL CITY HOLDINGS LIMITED v MIGHTY ROCKET PROPERTIES LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3535

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3535
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was unsustainable because it sought unliquidated damages; costs follow the event and an uplift of 50% on 2B scale costs was warranted due to the respondent's lack of merit and the director's role as directing mind, therefore costs of $10,755 plus disbursements $639.57 were awarded jointly against the company and its director.
9 Sept 2021

KUM FU STAINLESS STEEL KITCHEN EQUIPMENT LIMITED v LITTLE REPUBLIC NZ LIMITED [2021] NZCA 451

Citation

[2021] NZCA 451
Court

Court of Appeal

There was a clear substantial dispute as to whether the debt was owing and whether contracted works had been completed, therefore the statutory demand was properly set aside and the appeal dismissing that outcome must fail; standard appellate costs were ordered against the appellant.
24 Feb 2021

ZINDIA LIMITED v ARAPAWA ISLAND FORESTRY PARTNERSHIP [2021] NZHC 274

Citation

[2021] NZHC 274
Court

High Court

The court awarded costs to the applicant on a 2B basis and allowed travel, accommodation, printing and physical service disbursements because counsel's travel was reasonable given lack of direct flights and prior involvement, the application was urgent with tight timeframes, and the expenses were proportionate to the several‑million‑dollar statutory demand.