New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Cross-claim and set-off

Legal area

Court

1 Nov 2022

MAO v KIM & LEE [2022] NZHC 2836

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2836
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to establish a genuine triable cross-claim equal to or exceeding the indemnity costs judgment debt as required by s17(7) Insolvency Act 2006; the purported cross-claims had been struck out as abuse of process and lacked prospects of success; there was no legal basis to stay the bankruptcy notice or to disqualify the respondents' solicitors; therefore the applications were dismissed and the bankruptcy notice remained enforceable.
29 Jun 2021

HAINES v TRUSTEES OF LINK TRUST (No. 1) [2021] NZHC 1575

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1575
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish an evidential foundation for any arguable cross claim or cross demands against the trustees that equalled or exceeded the judgment debt such as would meet the s17 test; the intituling error was not prejudicial and did not defeat the notice; and the asserted fee claim is subject to an ongoing disciplinary complaint and not presently enforceable.
10 Sept 2013

ASB BANK LIMITED v C J and A C ROBINSON [2013] NZHC 2353

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2353
Court

High Court

The applications were dismissed because the alleged cross-claims lacked the requisite mutuality with the judgment debt, the matters could have been raised before consent judgment was entered, and the claims against the Bank lacked merit and appeared designed to avoid bankruptcy.
15 Feb 2013

CARR V MAIN FARM LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-001444

Citation

openlaw-853f78d0_ee8c_4095_bfd3_37881a9ff489.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed because the asserted cross-claims lacked the required mutuality with the separate corporate judgment debt and the debtor failed to demonstrate satisfactory security for the judgment debt; the defect in the certified copy of judgment was to be remedied by order but did not invalidate the notice.
3 Jun 2010

THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND V N JGIBSON HC AK CIV-2010-404-000230

Citation

openlaw-c79eda53_8282_48f4_b684_4726baa5570e.pdf
Court

High Court

The identity defect in the bankruptcy notice (naming the old Dental Council) was non-prejudicial and rectifiable under s 418 of the Insolvency Act 2006; the debtor failed to establish a genuine triable cross-claim because much of it is time-barred, misconceived, immunised by statute or an impermissible collateral attack on final tribunal and High Court decisions (abuse of process), so the application to set aside is dismissed and costs awarded to the creditor.

New Zealand Case Law

MAO v KIM & LEE [2022] NZHC 2836

HAINES v TRUSTEES OF LINK TRUST (No. 1) [2021] NZHC 1575

ASB BANK LIMITED v C J and A C ROBINSON [2013] NZHC 2353

CARR V MAIN FARM LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-001444

THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF NEW ZEALAND V N JGIBSON HC AK CIV-2010-404-000230