New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Substantial dispute test

Legal area

Court

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.
31 Oct 2013

FENTON PROJECTS LTD v CARLTON GORE HOLDINGS LTD [2013] NZHC 2872

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2872
Court

High Court

Fenton failed to produce evidence to establish a substantial dispute; the schedule of amounts owed and paid was unchallenged and Carlton produced uncontroverted affidavit evidence that it paid the shortfall to the Trust Board; therefore there was no substantial dispute and the statutory demand was not set aside.
8 Feb 2010

SUPERFURN PUKEKOHE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V SUPERFURN (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2009-404-006416

Citation

openlaw-d0f9d419_7299_42af_8be1_7300f550e02a.pdf
Court

High Court

The board's appointment of a liquidator on 29 October 2009 was a nullity because Superfurn Pukekohe had no constitution authorising board appointment under s241(2)(b); the applicant's evidence of a joint venture and payments did not meet the threshold of a substantial dispute under s290(4); accordingly the Court set aside the purported liquidation and, finding the debt due and unpaid, ordered Superfurn Pukekohe into liquidation under s291(1)(b) and appointed liquidators.
2 May 2008

SENSATION YACHTS LIMITED V PAUL DAVID SILLS HC AK CIV 2008-404-002092

Citation

openlaw-ab05cc50_70eb_414e_bf08_611c67d176f1.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found the applicant failed to demonstrate a genuine and substantial dispute as to the $89,368.47 debt and failed the conjunctive test (dispute + unfairness). Given the evidence of likely insolvency and supporting documentation for the respondent's payments, injunctive relief was refused and the respondent was entitled to proceed with liquidation steps and costs.

New Zealand Case Law

BUILDFIRST LTD v BESPOKE SYSTEMS LTD [2017] NZHC 2971

FENTON PROJECTS LTD v CARLTON GORE HOLDINGS LTD [2013] NZHC 2872

SUPERFURN PUKEKOHE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V SUPERFURN (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2009-404-006416

SENSATION YACHTS LIMITED V PAUL DAVID SILLS HC AK CIV 2008-404-002092