New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Payment claim

Legal area

Court

4 Oct 2023

DEM HOME LTD v NEW GATE LTD [2023] NZHC 2709

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2709
Court

High Court

Payment Claim 2 met the formal statutory requirements of ss 20(2)-(4) CCA and was validly served; Dem Home failed to serve a payment schedule disputing the claim or New Gate's entitlement to issue it, therefore under s 22 CCA Dem Home became liable to pay and could not establish a substantial dispute under s 290(4)(a) Companies Act; Demasol requires entitlement/timing disputes to be raised by payment schedule, so the statutory demand could not be set aside.
5 Sept 2022

69 GREENLANE EAST LIMITED v ORIENT CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2246

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2246
Court

High Court

The payment claim dated 6 December 2021 was contractually impermissible because the parties had agreed the fixed management fee would be payable only on agreed milestone dates, no milestone dates had been agreed or reached, therefore the payment claim was a nullity and there exists a substantial dispute under Companies Act s290(4)(a) warranting setting aside the statutory demand.
30 Aug 2022

STEELCRAFT STRUCTURAL LTD v A 2 Z NZ POWERCOM LTD [2022] NZHC 2164

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2164
Court

High Court

The Court refused indemnity costs because the CCA does not by itself authorise indemnity awards in a liquidation proceeding and indemnity costs are only available under contract or the High Court Rules; however the Court awarded increased costs (category 2B increased by 50% for steps after the statutory demand and statement of claim) because the defendant advanced meritless, belated defences and failed to plead adequately, and directed initial steps be assessed under Third Schedule steps 48–49 with remaining steps assessed as general civil procedure costs.
15 Aug 2022

STEELCRAFT STRUCTURAL LTD v A 2 Z NZ POWERCOM LTD [2022] NZHC 2017

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2017
Court

High Court

Powercom failed to serve a payment schedule to the s20 payment claim and did not comply with the s289 statutory demand, creating the statutory presumption of insolvency which it did not rebut because its financial statements were outdated; cross-claims and alleged defects could not defeat recovery under the CCA without a payment schedule, therefore the court adjourned to allow payment but will order liquidation if the debt is not paid by the stated date.
17 Feb 2022

DEMPSEY WOOD CIVIL LTD v CONCRETE STRUCTURES (NZ) LTD [2022] NZHC 168

Citation

[2022] NZHC 168
Court

High Court

It is reasonably arguable that Payment Claim No.9 was not validly served because prior communications established that payment claims were to be sent to the accounts address and consent to lone service to Mr Pickard cannot be reliably inferred; alternatively, even if email service to Mr Pickard was consented to, no information system was designated so service occurs only when the email came to his attention, which made the payment schedule timely; therefore s23 could not be relied on to establish a debt and the statutory demand was set aside.
28 Jan 2022

NICHOLLS GROUP PROJECTS LTD v PLAN DESIGN BUILD HOMES LTD [2022] NZHC 56 _x000b_

Citation

[2022] NZHC 56
Court

High Court

The payment claims substantively complied with s20(2) CCA; the identified errors were minor technical quibbles and did not render the claims invalid; breaches of the underlying contract (invoice period) are matters for a payment schedule not a ground to invalidate a payment claim; Nicholls Group failed to serve payment schedules in time, so the CCA 'sudden death' regime applied and the statutory demand could not be set aside.
22 Dec 2021

SOUTH PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL LTD v DEMASOL LTD [2021] NZHC 3597

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3597
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because it was reasonably arguable that Payment Claim 2 was not a valid payment claim under the CCA: the parties reasonably arguably agreed a fixed price single payment contract of $100,000 (with specified tipping terms) and most of the amount claimed in Payment Claim 2 comprised large variations that were not authorised by the contract, so s 23 could not be relied on to render the amounts a debt due.
21 Apr 2020

THE FLETCHER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD v SPOTLESS FACILITY SERVICES (NZ) LTD [2020] NZHC 780

Citation

[2020] NZHC 780
Court

High Court

Pursuant to the Court's discretion under s 24A(2)(e) of the Construction Contracts Act 2002, interim relief was appropriate on a Pickwick basis and Spotless was ordered to lift its suspension upon FCC depositing $2,067,715.86 (excluding GST) with the agreed stakeholder to be held on interest-bearing deposit and disbursed in accordance with further order of the Court; leave to apply reserved.
25 Mar 2020

POLY WEALTH TRUSTEE LTD v VAN VLERKEN [2020] NZHC 634

Citation

[2020] NZHC 634
Court

High Court

There was an arguable construction contract for the remedial work, but the invoice serving as a payment claim failed to comply with the mandatory s 20(3)/(4) requirements and prescribed Form 1 in material respects (notably absence of the due date, process for responding, scheduled amount procedure and advice on legal consultation). The omissions were fundamental, giving rise to a genuine and substantial dispute as to the debt, and therefore the statutory demand was to be set aside under s 290.
8 Nov 2019

SKYLIGHT INVESTMENTS LIMITED v KYNOCH CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2931 [8 November 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2931
Court

High Court

Kynoch demonstrated a good arguable case that the statutory demand was valid because Skylight failed to serve compliant payment schedules under the CCA; the transfer of a major property to an associated company and Skylight's conduct after CCC created a real risk assets would be dissipated; on the balance of convenience a freezing order limited to Skylight's remaining significant asset was necessary and proportionate, subject to variation for bona fide ordinary course dealings.