17 Dec 2019
The deed of lease was executed by the tenant and guarantor and the parties acted in performance of the lease; the formal requirements under the Statute of Frauds were satisfied by the written deed and part performance; there was no repudiation and therefore no real or arguable dispute about BBC's liability under the guarantee, so the s290 application fails.
17 Apr 2019
Defendant failed to establish a genuine and substantial dispute: documentary evidence (Toyota NZ letter and defendant's invoice) showed the $40,000 was an advance on first year's rent applied against the lessee's liability, and alleged additional costs relating to the sign were unquantified and did not negate the plaintiff's claim; partial dispute over part of the debt ($10,350) is insufficient to justify stay or restraint under r31.11, therefore interlocutory stay and restraint orders were dismissed and interim orders discharged.
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.
30 Apr 2010
The debts underlying the statutory demands were the subject of a genuine and substantial dispute, related litigation was pending in the District Court, and amounts covering the claimed debts had been placed in the defendant's solicitor's trust account; accordingly the defendant's application to restrain advertisement under r31.9 and to stay liquidation proceedings under r31.11 was granted.
5 Mar 2009
The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a genuine dispute on substantial grounds; contemporaneous invoices and letters amounted to acknowledgements of liability by the applicant and there was insufficient evidence to conclude the debt was payable by a tenant, so no basis existed to restrain advertisement or stay the liquidation proceedings.