New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Setting aside application

Legal area

Court

29 May 2023

BEW PROPERTIES 2021 LIMITED v ROSCO ICE CREAM LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1310

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1310
Court

High Court

Applicant's delay in proposing its position and failure to pay or state timing for payment of the undisputed balance of $76,593.06 justified respondent filing a notice of opposition; respondent is entitled to costs for that opposition on a category 2B basis ($4,780), but respondent must bear costs for steps after the undisputed amount was paid on 10 March, resulting in a deduction of $478 for the mentions hearing, yielding a net award to respondent of $4,302.
1 Nov 2018

MOFFAT ROAD LTD v NORTH HARBOUR MOTORS LTD (in liq) [2018] NZHC 2840

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2840
Court

High Court

No exceptional circumstances or impropriety were shown; the liquidator acted bona fide, took legal advice, and was exercising statutory duties to recover company assets, so personal liability for costs was inappropriate; costs awarded against the company only.
29 Nov 2016

HARRISON v HARRISON [2016] NZHC 2854

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2854
Court

High Court

Leave to file or be heard in opposition was refused because the proposed opposition merely rehashed previously rejected complaints, did not disclose any substantial or triable cross-claim, and the debtor had not appealed prior adverse decisions; accordingly an adjudication order adjudicating the debtor bankrupt was properly made and costs awarded to the creditors.
2 Jun 2016

TORESEN & ANOR v MURPHY [2016] NZHC 1187

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1187
Court

High Court

The District Court costs judgment remained a final judgment and execution had not been stayed; therefore the bankruptcy notice was valid and the application to set it aside failed.
22 Oct 2014

WATTS & HUGHES CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v COMPLETE SITEWORKS COMPANY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2600

Citation

(2014)22 PRNZ 238
Court

High Court

The Court refused the respondent's claim for interest under s87 because an application to set aside a statutory demand is not a 'proceeding in the High Court' for the purposes of s87 and a statutory demand issued outside court cannot include an award of interest; the Court accepted the respondent was entitled to actual and reasonable costs under s23 CCA for recovery steps in court and assessed those costs at $20,450 plus disbursements $1,400.53, dismissing the interest claim and ordering payment of costs and disbursements to the respondent.
18 Sept 2014

CLAYTON v CLAYTON [2014] NZHC 2275

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2275
Court

High Court

Because no supporting affidavit establishing a s 17(1)(d)(ii) cross claim was filed within the statutory 10 working days and the purported application was not served on the solicitors who issued the bankruptcy notice, the application to set aside was a nullity; therefore r 24.10 did not apply, an act of bankruptcy was committed, and adjudication is appropriate unless the debtor satisfies the outstanding judgments by the adjourned date.
27 Aug 2013

S Y CHANG-HOOKER v D J ROOKE [2013] NZHC 2182

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2182
Court

High Court

The bankruptcy notice was valid and the application to set it aside was dismissed; the respondent was entitled to costs of the successful defence assessed on a 2B basis with half-day allowances, resulting in a costs award of $4,230.00 inclusive of disbursements.
21 Oct 2011

TAUMARUNUI LIQUOR 2007 LIMITED V MB BEALE HC PMN CIV-2011-454-214

Citation

openlaw-1f93d8f2_290d_4e26_9d9c_d8b5da9b67ed.pdf
Court

High Court

The 5 May 2011 attendance was correctly characterised as a mentions/call-over and its charge was reduced from 0.4 to 0.2 of a day under Item 4.17; the 10.00 am attendance on 21 September 2011 was properly chargeable under Item 23 because it arose from the respondent’s procedural step to seek an adjournment and not from any prejudicial lateness by the applicant; accordingly Category 2B costs are awarded with the specified adjustments.
27 May 2009

MERLO BURGESS & CO LIMITED V JODEN FINANCE LIMITED HC AK CIV-2009-404-888

Citation

openlaw-33f4baae_b2eb_419b_acdf_c08c1989408e.pdf
Court

High Court

Respondent awarded costs on a 2B basis for 2.2 days plus disbursements; indemnity costs refused; costs for the 21 May hearing and related preparation to lie where they fall because the preliminary point arose from a relatively minor breach of r 7.20, caused no identifiable prejudice, and the correct issue was discretion under r 1.19, so departing from the presumption in r 15.23 for those items was justified.
16 Apr 2008

FIXED COST CIVIL LIMITED V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV 2007-404-006052

Citation

openlaw-822fe5de_3251_42db_85e3_376adb9c8246.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the applicant's subsequent steps (filing amended returns and supporting documents) removed the indebtedness and there was no abuse or fault by the Commissioner in issuing the statutory demand, r48D(f) applied and the correct exercise of the Court's discretion was to make no order for costs either way.