New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Set-off and cross-claims

Legal area

Court

30 Jun 2020

Tyres4U (NZ) Ltd v Bruce [2020] NZHC 1497

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1497
Court

High Court

The statutory prerequisites for adjudication were satisfied (final judgment obtained on admission; bankruptcy notice served and not complied with) and the debtor failed to discharge the onus to show that the related TCL proceedings raised triable cross-claims that would, if successful, defeat the judgment debt or justify the court refusing or halting adjudication under ss 37, 38 or 43; accordingly opposition and halt applications were dismissed and the matter was adjourned for undefended adjudication with costs to the creditor.
18 Apr 2013

GUY V BANK OF NEW ZEALAND HC AK CIV-2012-404-004366

Citation

openlaw-26a0c8ba_fb88_47b0_bf02_6ba3cdac2c41.pdf
Court

High Court

The court concluded BNZ remained a creditor with a debt exceeding $1,000; the debtor's purported bill of exchange did not legally extinguish the debt because it lacked the formal characteristics and authorised acceptance, and the class action or other cross-claims were not reasonably arguable to eliminate or reduce the debt below the statutory threshold; accordingly an adjudication order should be made in favor of BNZ.
28 Feb 2008

G R HOOLE AND K D PITFIELD IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE RECEIVER AND MANAGERS OF HILLCREST SERVICES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ANOR V BARRYS CAR SALES LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-4298

Citation

openlaw-bf7cee1c_3fa3_4671_899e_1ffb0d9d797d.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the defendants did not comply with the statutory demands and did not set them aside, the s 287 presumption arose; they failed to rebut that presumption under the cash flow solvency test and produced no admissible evidence of valid set-offs or cross-claims equal to or exceeding the demands; their appeal could not proceed because ordered security for costs was not paid; consequently the court ordered both defendant companies into liquidation and awarded costs to the plaintiffs; leave was granted for Patrick Antony Darby to represent the companies to avoid miscarriage of justice.

New Zealand Case Law

Tyres4U (NZ) Ltd v Bruce [2020] NZHC 1497

GUY V BANK OF NEW ZEALAND HC AK CIV-2012-404-004366

G R HOOLE AND K D PITFIELD IN THEIR CAPACITY AS THE RECEIVER AND MANAGERS OF HILLCREST SERVICES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) AND ANOR V BARRYS CAR SALES LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-4298