20 Jun 2023
The statutory demand debt was the subject of a genuine and substantial dispute (arguable termination at will or a binding compromise/accord and satisfaction in May 2022 and insufficient documentary evidence of the claimed debt), so enforcing the disputed debt by liquidation would be an abuse of process; the liquidation proceeding is dismissed.
26 Nov 2021
The application for an interim injunction was dismissed because, although there is a serious question to be tried, the interlocutory evidence favours the defendant's estoppel/merits defence, the plaintiff unreasonably delayed nearly nine months before suing and thereby changed the status quo, and it is inappropriate at interlocutory stage to exercise s 83 CCLA to remake an unreasonably broad restraint; on balance of convenience and overall justice an injunction would cause disproportionate harm to the defendant.
4 Dec 2019
The Court exercised its jurisdiction under the master services agreement and the Arbitration Act to grant an interim restraint preventing Finzsoft implementing its termination notice because Co-op Money showed a reasonable possibility of success (notably under clause 14.6), the harm to Co-op Money, its member credit unions and thousands of retail customers if services were withdrawn was not adequately reparable by damages and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the status quo pending resolution of the dispute.
31 Aug 2018
The Court set aside the statutory demand except as to $56,436.93 because Parkers established an indisputable indebtedness of $58,164.93 and Camsing established only an arguable set-off of $1,728 (defective packaging repair). All other set-off claims were either insufficiently evidenced, contingent, or unquantified and therefore failed to meet the clear and persuasive evidential standard required to defeat the statutory demand under s 290(4)(b).
2 Oct 2017
There is a genuine and substantial dispute as to the debt claimed in the statutory demand (including the legitimacy of invoice 177, entitlement to retentions, and claimed credits), Smart Controls Ltd has not established entitlement to collection costs, and therefore the statutory demand is set aside and costs are awarded to Security Systems Ltd with an increase for the improper use of a statutory demand while the debt was disputed.
26 May 2017
The Court applied a prima facie test and found that clause 25.7 constituted an arbitration agreement that remained prima facie operative because the procedural cancellation route in clause 25 was not followed; accordingly the Court stayed the fourth and fifth causes of action and referred those disputes to arbitration, ordered the plaintiffs to provide security for costs of NZD 12,800 as a first tranche within 10 working days, stayed the proceeding pending provision of that security, and dismissed the defendants' strike out application.
2 May 2017
Summary judgment granted to SPB for net NZD 118,646.80 plus statutory interest; the court held clause 3's reference to 'fundamental breach' did not extinguish accrued payment obligations, clause 6 operated to preserve recovery of amounts paid, due or becoming due despite cancellation, the School had affirmed the contract by conduct and delay so its purported early termination was ineffective, the School was entitled only to a limited arguable set-off for defective or missed maintenance work ($13,800 allowed), and remaining disputed issues proceed to trial.
2 Apr 2014
Nopera failed to establish an arguable case that the Godsiffs' conduct caused its failure to confirm the due diligence clause by the deadline; accordingly the Godsiffs were entitled to cancel and the caveat could not be sustained even though, generally, a contract conditional on OIA consent can pass an equitable interest.
29 Oct 2013
The statutory demand was set aside because Stratus demonstrated a prima facie and then arguable dispute as to the validity of the payment claims and the effect of competing terminations; Affordable withdrew its opposition, and costs were awarded to Stratus on a scale 2B with a 50% uplift for steps after filing of Stratus' application (except no costs for Stratus' response to the strike out application).
12 Jun 2013
Special leave to extend time was granted because the delay was short and satisfactorily explained (registry backlog and non‑egregious mistake by legal executive), there was no real prejudice to respondents, and the appeal raised a narrow but important legal issue (implication of a term into a standard industry contract); on balance the interests of justice required granting the extension.