1 Nov 2023
Award 2B costs because Intop's contractual interpretation arguments were not hopeless, its conduct did not amount to bad or very unreasonable behaviour required for indemnity costs, and the public interest in resolving the contract interpretation weighed against treating the application as improperly brought.
31 Jul 2023
The draft settlement deed was not binding in a way that extinguished the debt; even if referenced as binding in communications, Attitude Foods defaulted on agreed terms, leaving an outstanding undisputed debt of $206,047.46; the security interest granted on 27 April 2022 does not amount to compounding under s289(2)(d); Attitude Foods failed to establish solvency or other grounds to displace the presumption in favour of liquidation; Court therefore ordered liquidation and appointed liquidators.
17 Jun 2020
The Court found no agreement that FV Aluminium accepted a security over the Blake receivable; FV Aluminium lawfully pursued recovery of the undisputed amount by statutory demand and liquidation proceedings did not amount to abuse of process; Firma's communications amounted to an admission or strong inference of insolvency; accordingly the application to stay or restrain publication was refused and leave to file a statement of defence out of time was refused.
20 May 2020
Mad Butcher was only entitled to the $40,021.59 secured debt; clause 16 did not survive beyond the holding‑over period terminated by liquidation, cl21.1(d) was not effectively exercised because it was conditional on Mad Butcher procuring a lease which it failed to obtain, and therefore Mad Butcher suffered no recoverable loss from the liquidators' sale; accordingly Soncam is entitled to an order requiring release and discharge of the registered security on repayment of $40,021.59 and the liquidators succeed on the counterclaim.
27 May 2019
The Court held there was no serious question to be tried that would justify an interlocutory injunction under ss345-348 PLA because those provisions provide post-disposition remedies (s 348) rather than authority for prospective injunctions preventing a disposition; the General Security Deed, on its face, secures indebtedness under the Transaction Documents and is unlikely, on its proper construction, to include BCNs; FCU's asserted prejudice was overstated; balance of convenience and wider public interest in the Continuity Initiative marginally favoured respondents; accordingly the interim i…
26 Nov 2018
The demand was set aside in part because the applicant established an arguable substantial dispute as to the creditor's claimed interest charge ($24,954.01) and an arguable cross-claim/set-off for losses from detention of vehicles ($146,666.21); the remaining invoices were properly rendered and due, such that the statutory demand is upheld to the extent of $274,548.94, payment to be made by a set date or the respondent may apply for liquidation.
19 Oct 2018
The Court exercised its discretion under s 87 Judicature Act 1908 to award interest as compensatory for conversion of the appellants' property even though interest was not pleaded, and fixed overall costs to the appellants at NZD 40,000 inclusive of disbursements because appellants succeeded on conversion but achieved a substantially lesser recovery than claimed, warranting a reduced costs award.
17 Oct 2017
The security interests held by MB Finance over the vehicles were not mortgages but PPSA security interests; therefore PPSA s114(4) did not import PLA ss128–136 and MB Finance was not required to comply with the Property Law Act notice regime; the appellant's defence based on non‑compliance with PLA notice requirements failed and the appeal is dismissed.
13 Sept 2016
The request under s177 was not validly made until Mr Norris produced evidence of authority and of the claimed security (first made clear on 13 June); the s178 compliance period therefore ran from that date and Bowater was not in breach when the proceeding was issued on 17 June, so Mr Norris was not entitled to costs or damages and the costs application is dismissed.
8 Jun 2015
Clause 10 was a contractual promise to grant a registrable mortgage upon request following an event of default and did not create an equitable mortgage or proprietary interest prior to any request; consequently PlaceMakers had no immediately arguable estate or interest in the land to support the caveat and the application to prevent lapse of the caveat was dismissed; PlaceMakers could not rely on the later general security agreement because it was not cited in the caveat and did not exist when the caveat was lodged.