New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

S 289 companies act 1993

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2016

PINNACLE STEEL LTD v DESIGN ENGINEERING (S.I.) LIMITD [2016] NZHC 388

Citation

[2016] NZHC 388
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because Pinnacle demonstrated an arguable cross-demand/set-off arising from a subsequent Naylor Love claim which created a genuine and substantial dispute about the net amount due; accordingly s 290(4)(b)/(c) warranted setting aside the demand, subject to a condition that Pinnacle pay the difference between the demand balance and $40,000 within 10 working days.
26 Jan 2012

VALASAY HOLDINGS LIMITED V LYTTELTON SUPERMARKET LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-1441

Citation

openlaw-692b3bb9_002d_47d3_b4b5_2bd8b7e2636d.pdf
Court

High Court

Both parties achieved approximately equal success and failure; the applicant established limited arguable claims and set-offs but failed to demonstrate entitlement to a large portion of the sums claimed; weighing the parties' relative success, time spent on issues (notably refrigeration equipment) and precedent, the appropriate costs order is that costs lie where they fall and no party is awarded costs.
11 Nov 2009

SAGE SECURITIES LIMITED V HM ROOD, WF ROOD, MJ ROOD AND ADVISORY TRUSTEES LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-485-1150

Citation

openlaw-03bb46c0_d1a4_4110_bca3_4643fb8bee5b.pdf
Court

High Court

Where a narrowly defined list of contemporary documents exists that may demonstrably contradict the applicant's sworn case that funds were held on trust, and the determination is finely balanced on documentary evidence, the court will order discovery to enable a proper decision on an application to set aside a statutory demand.

New Zealand Case Law

PINNACLE STEEL LTD v DESIGN ENGINEERING (S.I.) LIMITD [2016] NZHC 388

VALASAY HOLDINGS LIMITED V LYTTELTON SUPERMARKET LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-1441

SAGE SECURITIES LIMITED V HM ROOD, WF ROOD, MJ ROOD AND ADVISORY TRUSTEES LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-485-1150