New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set-aside

Legal area

Court

22 Feb 2022

OPES PARTNERS LTD v SDOGENERAL LTD [2022] NZHC 239

Citation

[2022] NZHC 239
Court

High Court

Ordinary discovery in the statutory demand proceeding was ordered because Woolford J had already ordered substantially the same discovery in a parallel r 8.20 pre-commencement discovery proceeding, Opes had established the outline of a counterclaim sufficient to meet the threshold for discovery, and it would be unreasonable to decline discovery in this proceeding where discovery has already been ordered to enable Opes to formulate its counterclaim; discovery is ordered with the refinements previously imposed by Woolford J.
20 Jul 2020

GEORGE GRANT ENGINEERING LIMITED v STEELRITE ENGINEERING LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1815

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1815
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because the applicant demonstrated an arguable counterclaim for defective welding on the Bupa job that, on the evidence before the Court, created a genuine dispute as to liability and quantum under the Covington test such that the net indebtedness was seriously in doubt; the absence of a handwritten signature on the demand was not a fatal defect and did not alone justify setting aside the demand under s 290(5).
4 Jul 2013

FRIMLEY ESTATE LIMITED v K8 LIMITED [2013] NZHC 1693 [NAPIER]

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1693
Court

High Court

The r15.23 presumption that a plaintiff who discontinues must pay costs was not displaced because the statutory demand was properly issued following a Disputes Tribunal judgment, the applicant did not pay or secure the debt or pursue other remedies first, and therefore the applicant must pay costs on discontinuance assessed at $5,174 on a category 2B basis (plus approved disbursements).
8 Mar 2013

HERBERT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED V REINFORCING STEEL & MESH LIMITED HC NAP CIV-2012-441-602

Citation

openlaw-1045ca20_8bc4_4145_9024_a7a4967a2f6f.pdf
Court

High Court

The CCA applied to the contracts as prefabrication of customised components; Reinforcing's invoices, while labeled payment claims, did not comply with s20(2)(d) because they failed to specify a due date for payment and thus materially failed to meet statutory requirements; that defect meant Herbert established an arguable genuine and substantial dispute under s290(4) Companies Act 1993 and the statutory demand was set aside, subject to Herbert paying the undisputed balance of approximately $5,600 within 5 working days.
11 Jun 2012

ROADING SOLUTION DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED V TPR HOLDINGS LIMITED HC WN CIV-2012-485-678

Citation

openlaw-b6dc731d_1387_47b2_aa70_1dcb1bb123ce.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff established an arguable genuine and substantial dispute under s 290(4) because the evidence (GST invoice and tax credit note from Environmental Stabilisers, absence of a GST invoice issued by the defendant, and the fact the goods had not been redelivered) raised a plausible contention that the goods had been on-sold and that the defendant had not established a debt was due under clause 17; accordingly the statutory demand was set aside.
15 Dec 2011

NEW ZEALAND DAIRY PROCESSING LIMITED V SCHENKER (NZ) LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-5179

Citation

openlaw-73648f02_b809_4174_bc8f_45f77a726d2d.pdf
Court

High Court

The application to set-aside the statutory demand is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate an arguable genuine and substantial dispute over the debt and could not rely on counterclaims or set-off due to an explicit contractual no-set-off clause; the respondent is owed $686,514.87 and the statutory demand stands.
12 Dec 2011

FARMLANDS TRADING SOCIETY LIMITED V ROBERT A BELL HC WN CIV-2011-485-1057

Citation

openlaw-e44f6230_b130_4e7a_8c25_6c64aff62f5d.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the Disputes Tribunal granted the re-hearing subject to the condition that $7,123.87 be paid into Court and that condition had not been satisfied at the time of the application, the original Tribunal order remained in force and there was no effective ground to set-aside the Bankruptcy Notice; dismissal was ordered but stayed to permit the debtor to satisfy the condition by a fixed deadline, upon which the notice would be set aside.
8 Sept 2011

AMSTAR INTERIORS LIMITED V AIS INSULATION LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV-2011-404-3320

Citation

openlaw-d4a9969a_19f8_4434_b237_e02a858af012.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court accepted the independent quantity surveyor's uncontested valuation that $11,830.00 (plus GST) represented the value of work performed to 30 November 2007 and therefore that portion of the debt was not in substantial dispute and must stand; the remaining roughly $8,200 was shown to be arguably in substantial dispute given inconsistencies in AIS's job cards, questions about delivery/return of materials and front‑end invoicing, so the statutory demand was set aside except insofar as it sought the undisputed sum, with the applicant ordered to pay that sum within 10 working days or face…
21 Jun 2011

CAPITAL PRECUT SOLUTIONS LIMITED V TONY GRAHAM HC WN CIV-2011-485-137

Citation

openlaw-540ed418_a9fe_481b_bdbf_1c700bdc3643.pdf
Court

High Court

The debtor failed to establish a genuine triable cross-claim that could not have been raised in the proceedings that produced the costs order and failed to demonstrate abuse of process; accordingly the application to set-aside the Bankruptcy Notice is dismissed and the debtor must comply with the Bankruptcy Notice by the specified date, with costs awarded to the creditor.
22 Feb 2011

PRINT PROMO GROUP LIMITED V TURNKEY FRANCHISING GROUP LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-485-2267

Citation

openlaw-8b4f1935_a0a1_4aa6_98c6_efade32e593e.pdf
Court

High Court

There was a genuine and substantial dispute as to the existence and amount of the debt alleged in the statutory demand; accordingly the statutory demand was set aside and the merits must be litigated in the ordinary course rather than by liquidation proceedings.