New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of liquidation

Legal area

Court

23 Aug 2023

SAFARI VERVAARDIGING CC v SAFARI BBQ PRODUCTS LTD [2023] NZHC 2303

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2303
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because the Court retained jurisdiction, the statutory demand and judgment confirming approximately NZD 83,000 of debt were not properly challenged or shown to be genuinely disputable, there was insufficient evidence that the liquidation was an abuse of process connected to the trademark dispute, the asserted counterclaim was speculative/uncorroborated and could not justify a stay, and a stay would prejudice the creditor (SVC).
29 Nov 2022

BODY CORPORATE 68792 v LYNX TRUSTEES LIMITED (in liquidation) [2022] NZHC 3125

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3125
Court

High Court

The interlocutory application was hopeless, lacked requisite standing and was an abuse of process likely instigated to delay approval of liquidators' costs; therefore the discontinuing applicant is liable for costs. The court exercised discretion under r14.6 to depart from pure scale only to award scale costs on a 2B basis to both successful parties with a 50% uplift, but declined to award indemnity costs because there was some basis for believing the applicant may have sincerely (if wrongly) believed unresolved issues existed.
14 Sept 2018

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v SUPER TURF LTD (in liq) [2018] NZHC 2430 [14 September 2018]

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2430
Court

High Court

The Trust's application failed and its conduct risked impeding the liquidators; therefore the liquidators are entitled to an award of costs, but reduced to Category 1, Band A because the liquidators did not file a formal notice of opposition and much was already addressed in earlier judgment; costs fixed at $960.00 in favour of the defendant against the Trust.
16 May 2018

A AUTOMOTIVE LIMITED v MOTOHAUS AG 2008 LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1064

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1064
Court

High Court

The defendant failed to discharge the heavy onus required for a r31.11 stay: it did not establish a strong prima facie case that the plaintiff breached the lease in a manner justifying cancellation or that the premises were untenantable; the defendant failed to provide required written notice and declined offered repairs; errors in the statutory demand were partial and did not negate the creditor claim; defendant's solvency/liquidity evidence was insufficient. Accordingly the stay was dismissed.
7 Dec 2016

TANNENBERG LTD v JELLIE [2016] NZHC 2950

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2950
Court

High Court

Because the applicant failed to file the statutorily required supporting affidavit within the prescribed 10 working day period, an act of bankruptcy occurred under s17(1)(d) and the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the late set-aside application; the application was dismissed and costs awarded with payment deferred.
18 May 2016

FATWEB LIMITED v MANAIA ONE LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1016

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1016
Court

High Court

Time for filing was extended for one day for good reason and no prejudice, but Manaia did not establish a serious prospect of defeating the liquidation application because the debt underlying the statutory demand was not genuinely disputed in a manner sufficient to show clear and persuasive grounds for a set-off, and the arbitral finding on contract construction limited the scope of any counterclaim; accordingly the interim stay was discharged and the permanent stay dismissed.
17 Mar 2015

CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZHC 506

Citation

[2015] NZHC 506
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to permit a limited release of frozen funds—$10,000 (40 hours at $250/hr)—to Morgan & Maze as reasonable legal expenses, rejecting the larger sum claimed because the applicant's 100-hour estimate was not justified in light of prior estimates and the need to preserve assets for creditors; other relief was refused.
19 Aug 2014

CRANE v AQUAMARINE OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1960

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1960
Court

High Court

Aquamarine failed to establish a strong prima facie case of a genuine dispute or set-off sufficient to justify a stay under r 31.11; a substantial part of Crane's claim (October 2013 remuneration USD 20,000 and per diem EUR 2,700) was indisputable, Aquamarine failed to prove solvency and its evidence was unreliable, and the late affidavit was rightly refused; accordingly the application for stay and restraint was dismissed.
17 Feb 2014

UNDERGROUND TECHNOLOGIES LTD (IN LIQ) v CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS LIMITED [2014] NZHC 203

Citation

[2014] NZHC 203
Court

High Court

The stay was refused because evidence showed UTL was trading insolvently under the cashflow test (substantial aged trade liabilities, inability to meet current liabilities without significant capital injection, and unpaid statutory deductions/returns raising public interest concerns), and the risk that continued trading would worsen the company's position outweighed the unsubstantiated prejudice to third parties advanced by the applicant.
29 Nov 2013

MARCONEE SEAFOODS NZ LIMITED v CANISTER FISHING COMPANY LIMITED [2013] NZHC 3178

Citation

MARCONEE SEAFOODS NZ LIMITED v CANISTER FISHING COMPANY LIMITED [2013] NZHC 3178
Court

High Court

There is a genuine and substantial dispute as to whether an agreement existed and as to price so the contractual claim cannot be resolved on the stay application; however Marconee proved an incontrovertible benefit to Canister of at least 650 kg valued at $28/kg ($20,930) and Canister demonstrated liquid set-offs totalling $16,127.52, leaving an indisputable balance of $4,802.48; the Court ordered the liquidation proceeding stayed on payment of that sum by 20 December 2013 and permitted Marconee to proceed if unpaid.