New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set aside statutory demand

Legal area

Court

6 Sept 2023

AUSTAR REALTY LIMITED v ANDERSON [2023] NZHC 2483

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2483
Court

High Court

The Court declined to award indemnity or significantly increased costs because the Company’s grounds were not shown to be obviously and incontrovertibly without merit and there was insufficient evidence of an ulterior purpose or abusive conduct; however a modest uplift (25%) to 2B scale costs was appropriate because the demanded amount was paid shortly before the hearing and the proceeding was discontinued without submissions.
25 Jul 2023

SENIO HOLDNGS LTD v EVERGREEN HOMES & CONSTRUCTION LTD (COSTS) [2023] NZHC 1944

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1944
Court

High Court

The Court disallowed discrete allowances for the one‑page case management memorandum, for a separate bundle of authorities under step 41, and for a second allowance for short reply submissions and chronology because those items were trivial or covered by other steps; the Court refused a 50% uplift because respondent's arguments, while unsuccessful or unwise, were not abusive or so unmeritorious as to warrant increased costs. Senio was awarded costs on a 2B scale totalling NZD 10,994 and disbursements NZD 1,242.
11 Nov 2021

DAIRY SOLUTIONZ (NZ) LTD v PACIFIC DAIRY HOLDINGS LTD (In Liq) [2021] NZHC 3054

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3054
Court

High Court

The written assignment complied with Property Law Act s 50 and transferred DSL's rights and remedies under the Heads of Agreement to Dairy Solutionz (Processing) Ltd, so DSL lacked any arguable counterclaim or set-off when it applied under s 290; there were no other compelling grounds under s 290(4)(c) to set aside the statutory demand; the application is dismissed and DSL ordered to pay the NZD equivalent of USD 50,000 as determined by the expert.
27 Aug 2021

KINLEITH CONTINUATION LP v ROBERT JONES 151 LTD [2021] NZHC 2206

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2206
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to establish an arguable genuine and substantial dispute: the evidence did not show a mutual common intention between Kinleith and TBB differing from the terms of the executed Deed of Assignment, rectification was not available, and any alleged conflict by TBB did not negate Kinleith's liability under the assignment or provide a basis to set aside the statutory demand.
20 Jul 2021

LITTLE REPUBLIC NEW ZEALAND LTD v KUM FU STAINLESS KITCHEN EQUIPMENT LTD [2021] NZHC 1836

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1836
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because a substantial dispute existed as to whether the debt was owing and that dispute existed before the demand was issued; Kum Fu acted improperly and unnecessarily in opposing the set aside given notice of the dispute and failure to withdraw the demand, and therefore indemnity costs were justified but reduced as unreasonable in part, resulting in an award of indemnity costs of $15,470 plus disbursements of $4,530, GST exclusive.
29 Apr 2021

FLOW CONTROL LIMITED v IL FORNO LIMITED [2021] NZHC 946

Citation

[2021] NZHC 946
Court

High Court

Leave to permit the sole director (non‑lawyer) to represent the company was refused because the application concerned complex and non‑emergency litigation involving intertwined factual and legal issues, required professional objectivity, the proposed representative was closely associated and a witness, prior proceedings had involved counsel, and the High Court must ensure duties to the court and procedural rigour are observed.
24 Apr 2020

GRINBERG v GALANTE [2020] NZHC 800

Citation

[2020] NZHC 800
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside: a creditor cannot unilaterally replace the mandatory 15 working day compliance period with a 90 day term and s290(5) cannot be used to validate a deliberate and substantial departure from statutory requirements; alternatively the demand was invalid because the severed debt was not due and payable when the demand was issued as the assignment and demand coincided and there was no prior call-up of the current account. Although the deed of assignment was capable of effecting severance, equity did not bar severance on the evidence.
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.
13 Sept 2019

AA TAXATION & ACCOUNTING SERVICES LTD v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2019] NZHC 2301

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2301
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside under s 290(4)(c) because there is a sufficiently compelling and arguable dispute whether the CPRA settlement payments extinguished AA's tax liability and a serious risk of double recovery/unjustness if the statutory demand were enforced; the matter must be litigated by AU in substantive proceedings so the allocation of forfeited funds and treatment of the Agreed Assessment can be determined.
11 Feb 2019

MCAM MEDICAL (2011) LTD v STRIKER ELECTRICAL LTD [2019] NZHC 119

Citation

[2019] NZHC 119
Court

High Court

On the evidence the applicant established a genuine and substantial dispute and a counterclaim/set-off that would likely exceed the $24,048.59 demand based on the Chopping report, the Board's disciplinary findings, and the Arendal remedial report and invoices; accordingly the statutory demand was set aside.