New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set aside

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2023

GEORGE GRANT ENGINEERING LIMITED v STEELRITE ENGINEERING LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3295

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3295
Court

High Court

The application to recall the sealed 20 July 2020 costs order was dismissed because the subsequent concession by GGE in unrelated proceedings did not amount to fresh evidence justifying reopening, abuse of process was not established, the circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional to invoke the Court's inherent jurisdiction, and it was inappropriate to reassess a sealed costs order absent cogent new material and with the original Judge unavailable.
14 Nov 2023

SAVAGE GARAGE NZ LTD v PERAMUNE [2023] NZHC 3204

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3204
Court

High Court

There was a clear and significant factual conflict about the essential terms of the oral agreement (whether Peramune was entitled to a pre‑agreed fixed price or only the sale proceeds net of agreed costs); that conflict could not properly be resolved on affidavit evidence in statutory demand proceedings and therefore amounted to a genuine and substantial dispute, requiring the statutory demand to be set aside and the dispute determined in ordinary proceedings.
9 Nov 2023

BURNS 20 LIMITED v BODY CORPORATE 90898 [2023] NZHC 3160

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3160
Court

High Court

The Court set aside the statutory demand under s 290(4)(a) because Burns established a fairly arguable, genuine and substantial dispute about the methodology and calculation of the utility levies (including whether invoices were properly characterised and whether the 2022 levy was validly struck under the Unit Titles Act); the factual complexity required substantive proceedings and Burns' deposit of the claimed sum demonstrated bona fides.
8 Nov 2023

CHEN v AUCKLAND WEIHAO INVESTMENT LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3134

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3134
Court

High Court

The court dismissed the joinder, leave to appeal, stay and set aside applications because the pleaded allegations did not disclose any tenable cause of action against the proposed join defendants; statutory breaches relied on (Companies Act s10, AML/CFT and LINZ certification) do not give rise to private causes of action or invalidate the transactions alleged; no arguable error of law or fact was identified to justify leave to appeal or a stay; costs were appropriately awarded against the plaintiff on a 2B basis.
26 Sept 2023

MILLS v FENG [2023] NZHC 2674

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2674
Court

High Court

The court struck out Feng's claims against the Mills Trust as not reasonably arguable because the claims were irrelevant to liability under the signed sale and purchase agreement, raised matters that could and should have been advanced in the summary judgment proceeding, did not establish a duty of care or a Fair Trading Act cause against a non‑trading vendor, and therefore did not constitute a genuine triable cross‑claim; accordingly the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was dismissed.
8 Sept 2023

CHATHAM HARDWARE LTD v CHATHAM ISLANDS MANAGEMENT LTD [2023] NZCA 433 [8 September 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZCA 433
Court

Court of Appeal

The statutory demand was not set aside because the written FSA and contemporaneous correspondence displace any asserted collateral pricing agreement; Hardware failed to follow contractual dispute procedures and produced no cogent evidence of an enforceable collateral margin or of a seriously arguable Commerce Act or Fair Trading Act claim; consequently there is no substantial dispute as to the debt and the statutory demand stands.
1 Sept 2023

WU & Ors v XING [2023] NZHC 2409

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2409
Court

High Court

The applications to set aside the bankruptcy notices were dismissed because Mr Zhong failed to establish a genuine triable cross-claim in liability and quantum equal to or exceeding the judgment debts; his asserted entitlement to settlement proceeds was incorrect (funds payable to Green Land and held in trust), many asserted claims re-litigated issues already determined, and pending appeals or stay applications do not constitute cross-claims under s17.
28 Jul 2023

CENTRO PILGRIM LTD v MATHEW BARR MOTOR GROUP LTD (Costs) [2023] NZHC 2002

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2002
Court

High Court

Barr was entitled to costs on a 2B basis in both proceedings; certain overlapping steps were apportioned and shared (reduced total allowance for specified steps split equally), two sealing allowances/fees were awarded (one per proceeding), an uplift of 50% on scale costs was justified for CIV-2023-409-34 because Centro improperly used the statutory demand procedure, and a 0.4 day allowance for costs memoranda (split between proceedings) was awarded.
18 Jul 2023

BUILDING BRILLIANT NZ LIMITED v STAR FIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1857

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1857
Court

High Court

The applicant's conduct in continuing the application after settlement discussions was not sufficiently vexatious, unnecessary or unreasonable to justify indemnity costs or any costs; the settlement was effectively in place by part‑performance but clause 128 did not apply to entitle indemnity costs; therefore costs are ordered to lie where they fall and no declaration that $143,228.50 is a liquidated sum is appropriate in these proceedings.
13 Jun 2023

WIMPEX LTD v OPEN COUNTRY DAIRY LTD [2023] NZHC 1476

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1476
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was inappropriate because it sought unliquidated damages and was used to leverage security; although the respondent overreached and its conduct was open to criticism it did not act vexatiously or improperly to a degree warranting indemnity costs; accordingly the applicant is awarded increased scale costs (2B for specified steps and 2A for submissions) with a 50% markup, totalling $10,396.50.