New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set off/counterclaim

Legal area

Court

6 Nov 2017

DILWORTH TRUST BOARD v N M BRIGHT [2017] NZHC 2282

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2282
Court

High Court

The statutory requirements of s13 were met, the debtor failed to provide reliable evidence that he could pay the debt or that he owned assets of sufficient value to avoid adjudication, ownership disputes over the plant and chattels are unresolved and for other proceedings/parties to determine, and there were no compelling or equitable reasons to refuse adjudication; accordingly an order for adjudication was made.
10 Sept 2012

VNL HOLDINGS LIMITED V YARROWS FINE FOODS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED HC NWP CIV 2012-443-000162

Citation

openlaw-54d9ce12_626e_4815_857a_441cbb8ed0a0.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court concluded there was no evidence of agreement to repay the $1.35M by journal entries, the Deed of Undertaking and Westpac conditions required cash repayment and prior notice so the journal-entry theory failed, there was no reasonably arguable counterclaim under the Contractual Mistakes Act, and VNL did not demonstrate ability to pay; accordingly the statutory demand was not set aside though time to comply was extended.
17 Jul 2008

TOTAL IT LIMITED V DULCIUS DEVELOPMENTS LTD HC CHCH CIV 2008 409 830

Citation

openlaw-7e2ae6cf_85c8_43eb_8509_26b14c5802e1.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found there was no credible, substantial dispute over the debt; the retention fund paid to the solicitor did not discharge Total's obligation because Total prevented release of the funds after the retention period expired and did not raise justified claims within that period; therefore the statutory demand could not be set aside.
27 Apr 2007

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION V CHISHOLM HC AK CIV 2006-404-3230

Citation

openlaw-d2f4d4d9_fee9_4dc7_8832_be6c27bdf8be.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendant failed to place sufficient, particularised admissible evidence to establish a reasonably arguable defence either that the mortgagee sale breached s 103A or that the bank was liable for wrongful payment of performance bonds; divergence between valuations and sale price was explicable by forced sale discount; therefore summary judgment for the plaintiff was appropriate.

New Zealand Case Law

DILWORTH TRUST BOARD v N M BRIGHT [2017] NZHC 2282

VNL HOLDINGS LIMITED V YARROWS FINE FOODS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED HC NWP CIV 2012-443-000162

TOTAL IT LIMITED V DULCIUS DEVELOPMENTS LTD HC CHCH CIV 2008 409 830

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION V CHISHOLM HC AK CIV 2006-404-3230