15 Nov 2023
Because there was a genuine dispute about remedial works and the debt, the statutory demand and liquidation proceedings should not have been issued to collect that debt; accordingly the plaintiff was not entitled to recover costs and costs were ordered to lie where they fall.
9 Sept 2021
Court declined to resolve disputed factual issues on the limited untested evidence, treated the withdrawal of the statutory demand as akin to discontinuance, and awarded 2B scale costs and disbursements to applicant Triple Eight Contractors Ltd totalling NZD 14,794.30; no uplift or indemnity costs were awarded and substituted service did not attract more than scale costs.
6 Aug 2018
The court declined to reserve costs pending arbitration because arbitration was unlikely to resolve the solvency question; the interim liquidator application failed but was not so hopeless as to justify increased costs; parties' substantive costs claims largely cancelled each other out; the plaintiff was penalised for two non-appearances and the defendant was awarded costs on a 2B basis for those appearances totaling $1,784.00; the plaintiff's costs application was dismissed.
19 May 2016
On the facts each party's conduct contributed to unnecessary litigation over an $11,725 disputed sum; in the exercise of the court's discretion under r 14.1 and having regard to s 290, neither party is entitled to costs and each must bear its own costs and disbursements.
13 May 2014
The court found Wildlife Pictures Ltd had an arguable counterclaim under s290(4)(b) based on equipment purchased with the respondent's loans and possibly taken by him, and therefore set aside the statutory demand; the court also allowed the director's agent to appear due to exceptional circumstances.
11 May 2012
Because the defendant had clear notice of a substantial dispute as to liability before issuing the statutory demand, and lacked records to rebut that dispute, issuing and maintaining the demand was inappropriate; the defendant should have withdrawn the demand earlier and is liable for increased costs to compensate the plaintiff, resulting in an award of actual costs and disbursements totaling $7,235.06.
20 Sept 2010
The Court finds a substantial dispute exists as to the debt; accordingly the application to set aside the statutory demand is granted and the matter is directed to an urgent two‑day hearing with pleadings and a timetable to be agreed.
8 Nov 2007
It was reasonable for the creditor to issue and pursue the liquidation application until the dispute over the debt was substantiated; because of the procedural history and when the substantive grounds of dispute emerged, the justice of the case requires that costs lie where they fall.