New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Counterclaim/set‑off

Legal area

Court

30 Nov 2023

WILSON MCKAY TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD v VAN DEN ANKER CONSTRUCTION LTD [2023] NZHC 3475

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3475
Court

High Court

Cancellation/suspension of a building contract does not extinguish accrued obligations to remedy defective work; where defect is established and builder fails to remedy after notice, owner may recover the reasonable cost of third‑party remediation — accordingly the trustees were entitled to recover the agreed cost of remedial roofing work despite suspension and cancellation.
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

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).
5 Dec 2022

CHATHAM HARDWARE LIMITED v CHATHAM ISLAND MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2022] NZHC 3227

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3227
Court

High Court

The written February 2016 fuel supply agreement governed pricing and expressly allowed CIM to set prices and disclaimed reliance on external arrangements; the spreadsheet did not create a binding collateral guarantee of a 19.3% margin, contemporaneous conduct (CHL repeatedly taking supply and not complaining while in arrears) and objective documentation undermined CHL's account and witnesses' retrospective impressions, and there was insufficient evidence to establish breaches of the Fair Trading Act or Commerce Act. Therefore there was no substantial dispute or valid cross‑claim and the statu…
21 Oct 2022

SAFARI BBQ PRODUCTS LIMITED v SAFARI VERVAARDIGING CC [2022] NZHC 2741 [21 October 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2741
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was partially set aside: the interest component was not a debt due at the date of the demand because interest had not been quantified and invoiced (s289) and is therefore removed; a ZAR 44,000 reduction was justified because there was a real evidential dispute over alleged overcharging on shipping (ZAR 11,000 per container) that could not be resolved on affidavit; the contractual no set-off clause was enforceable and barred SNZ from relying on counterclaims for defective goods as a set-off in this proceeding; the demand was not an abuse of process.
20 Sept 2022

DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION LTD v MACKENZIE [2022] NZHC 2400

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2400
Court

High Court

DCL was entitled to costs on a category 2B basis for filing the set-aside application because it had a valid counterclaim exceeding the demand when it filed; Mr Mackenzie must pay costs for steps taken after he paid the Tribunal award on 10 August 2022; costs of the aborted liquidation filing are to lie where they fall.
22 Feb 2022

OPES PARTNERS LTD v SDOGENERAL LTD [2022] NZHC 239

Citation

[2022] NZHC 239
Court

High Court

Ordinary discovery in the statutory demand proceeding was ordered because Woolford J had already ordered substantially the same discovery in a parallel r 8.20 pre-commencement discovery proceeding, Opes had established the outline of a counterclaim sufficient to meet the threshold for discovery, and it would be unreasonable to decline discovery in this proceeding where discovery has already been ordered to enable Opes to formulate its counterclaim; discovery is ordered with the refinements previously imposed by Woolford J.
21 Jul 2021

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND v DAVEY [2021] NZHC 1854

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1854
Court

High Court

The Bank established entitlement to summary judgment: the guarantee was valid, demand was made and unpaid, the guarantee's express no set-off/no counterclaim clause precluded the defendant's asserted counterclaims and set-offs as a defence to payment, proposed third party claims against receivers/BDO do not defeat the Bank's right to judgment, and no exercise of discretion to refuse summary judgment was warranted.
30 Jun 2021

GLAISTER FARMS LIMITED v ROWE FARMING SYSTEMS LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1587

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1587
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because the applicant raised reasonably arguable post‑termination counterclaims that materially reduced the sum claimed so that the demand could not be maintained; the Termination Agreement did not contain a clear full and final settlement of all matters and good faith obligations did not preclude pursuing claims discovered after termination.
25 Feb 2021

HAYMAN HAULAGE LTD v HAVOC HAULAGE LTD [2021] NZHC 282

Citation

[2021] NZHC 282
Court

High Court

The Court held the proceedings were properly filed in the Tauranga registry under r 5.1(2) and that failure to file in the proper registry is an irregularity not a nullity under r 1.5; further, Hayman produced quantified, non‑contingent counterclaims and clear and persuasive grounds for them (GPS cancellation and signwriting) such that there was a genuine and substantial dispute and a net set-off reducing the demand; accordingly the statutory demand was set aside.