New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Summary jurisdiction

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2023

IMMIGRATION ADVICE NEW ZEALAND LTD v SALES NAVIGATOR LTD [2023] NZHC 3394 [28 November 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3394
Court

High Court

IANZ raised specific, contemporaneous and substantive disputes about the scope, quality and quantum of the work prior to the statutory demand; those disputes were sufficiently genuine and substantial such that the statutory demand could not be upheld in summary proceedings and should be set aside, with any quantification left to ordinary proceedings (eg Disputes Tribunal).
24 May 2023

HUTCHISON PLUMBING GASFITTING & DRAINLAYING LIMITED v PELICONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1229

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1229
Court

High Court

On the unchallenged affidavit evidence the applicant demonstrated a real and substantial dispute and a counterclaim/set-off exceeding the statutory demand; in absence of opposition the court accepted that evidence and set the statutory demand aside under s 290(4).
17 May 2022

XINHAO DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v LOCAL CIVIL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1082

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1082
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because Xinhao failed to demonstrate a genuine and substantial dispute in relation to the two certified scheduled amounts that form the statutory demand; the June 2018 payment could not be treated as a set-off in the recovery proceedings because s 79 of the CCA prohibits giving effect to counterclaims/set-offs in such proceedings; solvency is not a sufficient standalone ground to set aside the demand.
15 Oct 2019

ECOLIBRIUM BIOLOGICALS LIMITED v BIOTELLIGA HOLDINGS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2628

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2628
Court

High Court

Ecolibrium failed to provide clear and persuasive evidence of an enforceable oral variation or set-off; in the face of clear no set-off, entire agreement and no oral variation clauses the threshold for setting aside the statutory demand under s 290 was not met; application dismissed and statutory demand enforced.
5 Aug 2016

SOUTH PACIFIC FIRE PROTECTION SOUTH ISLAND ALARMS LTD v SAFE NZ LTD [2016] NZHC 1810

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1810
Court

High Court

The Court found there was a genuine and substantial dispute as to liability for the majority of the invoiced amounts and that only certain invoices met s 20 requirements of the Construction Contracts Act 2002; accordingly the statutory demand could not justify immediate liquidation in respect of the disputed amounts. The Court identified $36,065.45 as the sum constituted by valid payment claims and ordered a stay and restraint of advertising until that sum was paid by 5.00 pm 26 August 2016, after which South Pacific could proceed if unpaid.
27 Jun 2016

POINT TO POINT HOLDINGS v COLSLARDER LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1420

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1420
Court

High Court

On the evidence (affidavits, photographs, snag list and contractor quotation) there was a significant and genuine dispute as to the quality of workmanship on key invoices and PPH demonstrated a counterclaim whose assessed quantum exceeded the demand; accordingly the statutory demand was set aside under s 290.
18 Feb 2004

NGA URI O TE NGAHUE V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL CA CA407/03

Citation

openlaw-801a09af_7608_4982_bee5_1f3a906868bf.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Because established authorities confirm that New Zealand courts have universal summary criminal jurisdiction, local authorities may validly make bylaws under statutory power, and neither the Treaty of Waitangi nor the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 confers a separate jurisdiction or immunity, the application did not raise an arguable question of law and special leave to appeal was refused.

New Zealand Case Law

IMMIGRATION ADVICE NEW ZEALAND LTD v SALES NAVIGATOR LTD [2023] NZHC 3394 [28 November 2023]

HUTCHISON PLUMBING GASFITTING & DRAINLAYING LIMITED v PELICONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1229

XINHAO DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v LOCAL CIVIL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1082

ECOLIBRIUM BIOLOGICALS LIMITED v BIOTELLIGA HOLDINGS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2628

SOUTH PACIFIC FIRE PROTECTION SOUTH ISLAND ALARMS LTD v SAFE NZ LTD [2016] NZHC 1810

POINT TO POINT HOLDINGS v COLSLARDER LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1420

NGA URI O TE NGAHUE V WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL CA CA407/03