New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restraint on advertising

Legal area

Court

31 May 2023

XING v WMW TRUSTEES LTD [2023] NZHC 1332

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1332
Court

High Court

The statutory demands were invalid because there was no debt due to the plaintiff when they were issued and the plaintiff lacked standing to enforce a judgment in favour of Green Land; the demands were not served in accordance with s 387(1); a late deed of assignment was inadmissible and in any event post-dated the demands so could not cure the defects; accordingly the Court granted a stay of the liquidation proceedings and restrained advertising, with conditional strike-out unless amended claims and evidence are filed within 10 working days.
9 May 2018

HENDERSON TIMBERS LIMITED v ARTISAN PAINTING DECORATING LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1048 [9 May 2018]

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1048
Court

High Court

On the evidence there was a genuine and substantial dispute whether Artisan Painting Decorating Ltd contracted to purchase the timber (deliveries were invoiced to 'Landing Drive (Dama)' and initial dealings were with Dama); emails signed by the director were insufficient to establish contractual liability (past consideration and possible inadvertent signature); accordingly the liquidation proceeding must be stayed and advertising restrained so the substantive dispute can be litigated in the ordinary way.
12 Oct 2017

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v NEW ORLEANS HOTEL (2011) LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2500

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2500
Court

High Court

New Orleans was and remains insolvent with an undisputed and increasing tax debt; the security proffered was inadequate or unsupported by admissible valuation and guarantees; there was no arguable defence to the debt and the Fresh Cut Flower threshold for leave to defend was not met; accordingly the Court refused to stay the liquidation proceeding or restrain advertising and refused leave to file a defence out of time.
17 Jun 2014

SHAW v GLOBE HOLDINGS LTD [2014] NZHC 1360

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1360
Court

High Court

Globe failed to establish a serious question to be tried and the balance of convenience favoured allowing the statutory demand process to continue: the invoices were properly rendered to Globe under the engagement letter, Globe's alleged offset (a claim by related company Seaside for GST penalties) was tenuous, unpleaded and unsupported by evidence of negligence or steps taken to bring the related claims, and the modest quantum meant there was insufficient prejudice to justify a stay or restraint on advertising.
16 Apr 2010

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-000123

Citation

openlaw-19c4e75b_365d_4744_9583_a153eb2d73ae.pdf
Court

High Court

No binding settlement was formed by the correspondence and filing of returns; the receivership materially changed circumstances so the Commissioner was entitled to file an amended claim; there are not clear and persuasive grounds to stay the liquidation or restrain advertising; assuming leave was required to file the amended statement of claim, leave is granted because the amendment is necessary to resolve the real controversy and causes no illegitimate prejudice; costs awarded 2B and a short temporary stay was granted pending possible appeal.
10 Mar 2008

HI DEFINITION LIMITED V CITYWIDE ELECTRICAL LIMITED HC AK CIV 2007-404-3664

Citation

openlaw-046b3a35_103f_4842_90db_27789b460b3f.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendant established sufficient material on solvency to rebut the presumption of insolvency and to justify a stay and restraint under R700K; the Court granted the stay and restraint conditional on the defendant paying $19,999 into Court within 5 working days and issuing District Court proceedings to pursue its counterclaim within 10 working days, thereby protecting the plaintiff's security while allowing the dispute to be resolved.
18 Jan 2007

EASTWOOD FARMS LTD V KITCHENER GROUP MANAGEMENT LTD HC AK CIV-2006-404-7807

Citation

openlaw-a464056e_12fb_4a97_ac1d_c884dc15e8e7.pdf
Court

High Court

The court granted interim orders staying the winding up proceedings and restraining advertising because the applicant's sworn evidence disclosed an arguable genuine dispute as to whether the deposit was payable when Eastwood purported to cancel the contract and a potential right of set-off that could eliminate the debt; preservation of the status quo pending resolution was necessary.

New Zealand Case Law

XING v WMW TRUSTEES LTD [2023] NZHC 1332

HENDERSON TIMBERS LIMITED v ARTISAN PAINTING DECORATING LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1048 [9 May 2018]

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v NEW ORLEANS HOTEL (2011) LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2500

SHAW v GLOBE HOLDINGS LTD [2014] NZHC 1360

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-000123

HI DEFINITION LIMITED V CITYWIDE ELECTRICAL LIMITED HC AK CIV 2007-404-3664

EASTWOOD FARMS LTD V KITCHENER GROUP MANAGEMENT LTD HC AK CIV-2006-404-7807