New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solvency

Legal area

Court

9 Nov 2023

BURNS 20 LIMITED v BODY CORPORATE 90898 [2023] NZHC 3160

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3160
Court

High Court

The Court set aside the statutory demand under s 290(4)(a) because Burns established a fairly arguable, genuine and substantial dispute about the methodology and calculation of the utility levies (including whether invoices were properly characterised and whether the 2022 levy was validly struck under the Unit Titles Act); the factual complexity required substantive proceedings and Burns' deposit of the claimed sum demonstrated bona fides.
21 Sept 2023

MEDIAFLOW LIMITED v MARIN [2023] NZHC 2636

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2636
Court

High Court

On the interim without‑notice application the Court found it clearly arguable that Marin breached s161 by not certifying that his employment contract/payments were fair and that payments could jeopardise solvency; however, because of the overlap with employment jurisdiction and the need to hear Marin, the Court declined to grant relief without notice and ordered service and an opportunity to oppose within 10 working days, with further timetable directions if opposed.
7 Jun 2023

ZENSCAPE LIMITED v COLLECTIVE CONTRACTORS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1410

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1410
Court

High Court

The Court stayed the liquidation proceedings and restrained advertising because there is a genuine and substantial dispute about the invoices (notably charges for travel time, meal breaks and timesheet variances) that must be tested at trial; the parties had contractual payment provisions outside the CCA payment‑claim regime but that did not defeat the existence of the substantive dispute; Collective rebutted the insolvency presumption by evidence and deposit of the disputed sum into trust; and the creditor's pursuit via statutory demand and agents, given the communicated dispute, amounted to…
17 Apr 2023

MARYLAND BASSETT COMPANY LTD v TAIHE INNOVATION MANAGEMENT LTD (in rec) [2023] NZHC 801

Citation

[2023] NZHC 801
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied it was reasonably arguable that the loan agreement was part of a sham transaction and that, on the evidence including the Deed of Trust and Indemnity, it was reasonably arguable that cl 3.2 created an indemnity/cross‑demand at least equal to the statutory demand; accordingly the statutory demand was set aside under s 290(4)(a) and (b).
8 Sept 2022

PRINCIPLE DEVELOPMENTS LTD v SLOTEMAKER [2022] NZHC 2283

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2283
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside under s 290(4)(a) because there is a substantial and arguable dispute as to whether PDL breached clause 25.1: the clause reasonably refers to the existing constructed and council‑certified building platform and to earthworks that would alter or reposition the platform or its amenity, whereas the evidence shows remedial earthworks were undertaken adjacent to and to protect the platform and there is no clear change to its physical attributes; therefore it is arguable no debt is owing and the demand must be set aside.
31 Aug 2022

JNJ HOLDINGS LTD v MJ & KIMKO COMPANY LTD [2022] NZHC 2189

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2189
Court

High Court

The applicant discontinued the application after paying the judgment debt, which vindicated the respondents' position as creditor; accordingly respondents substantially succeeded and are entitled to costs on the 2B scale of $5,736 plus disbursements; indemnity costs are declined because the court could not conclude the set aside application was hopeless without examining the asserted counterclaim.
26 Jul 2022

MELBOURNE LTD v BARTLETT CONCRETE PLACING LTD [2022] NZHC 1786

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1786
Court

High Court

Consent to electronic service may be inferred from consistent prior commercial dealings and actual receipt; on the facts Melbourne's conduct established inferred consent so the payment claims were validly served by email; the 15 December 2021 email did not meet s21 requirements and was not a valid payment schedule; Melbourne did not prove solvency or a substantive counterclaim sufficient to set aside the statutory demand under s290(4); discretionary relief was not warranted, so the application was dismissed.
12 Nov 2020

EVERSONS INTERNATIONAL LTD v BIONUTRIENT CUSTOMS LTD [2020] NZHC 2989

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2989
Court

High Court

The court granted an extension of time because the defendant demonstrated an arguable defence on the merits (material disputed as to whether Payments were investments forwarded at the plaintiff's direction rather than repayable loans and the limitation defence was arguable), the delay was short and sufficiently explained (including COVID‑19 disruption), and the plaintiff had not pursued the claim diligently; although solvency evidence was lacking and insolvency is a strong factor, overall justice favored permitting the defence to be filed.
10 Aug 2020

FTG SECURITIES LIMITED v BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2020] NZHC 2009

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2009
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the costs order of $43,133 remained an unsatisfied judgment debt; payments by receivers to BNZ covered BNZ's legal invoices but did not discharge the judgment debt; FTG failed to adduce evidence of solvency or a genuine substantial dispute under s290(4)(a) and did not establish other grounds to justify setting aside the demand under s290(4)(c).
17 Jun 2020

FV ALUMINIUM 2011 LTD v FIRMA CONSTRUCTION LTD [2020] NZHC 1358

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1358
Court

High Court

The Court found no agreement that FV Aluminium accepted a security over the Blake receivable; FV Aluminium lawfully pursued recovery of the undisputed amount by statutory demand and liquidation proceedings did not amount to abuse of process; Firma's communications amounted to an admission or strong inference of insolvency; accordingly the application to stay or restrain publication was refused and leave to file a statement of defence out of time was refused.