New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Withdrawal of demand

Legal area

Court

3 May 2022

PLATFORM HOMES EQUIPMENT LTD v ORMISTON RISE LTD (in rec) [2022] NZHC 881

Citation

[2022] NZHC 881
Court

High Court

The receivers reasonably issued the statutory demand given company records and PHEL's failure to provide requested documents; PHEL was reasonable to apply to set aside within the strict time limits; the demand was withdrawn only after PHEL's reply evidence and other affidavits raised new factual disputes that made determination inappropriate on a set aside application; those circumstances justified displacing the r 15.23 presumption and accordingly costs lie where they fall, so PHEL's costs application is declined.
28 Apr 2022

HANDY MANNERS LIMITED v PROJECT SEVEN LIMITED [2022] NZHC 842

Citation

[2022] NZHC 842
Court

High Court

The applicant was entitled to costs on success; because a bona fide dispute was communicated by at least 11 March 2022 the statutory demand should have been withdrawn and an uplift of 30% on 2B scale costs is appropriate; there was insufficient evidence to make the debt collector (LDC) separately liable for costs; leave to file new evidence was refused and costs for the applicant's costs memorandum were recoverable.
10 Mar 2017

AUCKLAND BUILDING GROUP LIMITED v PALM BEACH VINEYARD LIMITED [2017] NZHC 408

Citation

[2017] NZHC 408
Court

High Court

The statutory demand should not have been served; the respondent withdrew the demand but did not justify deferral of costs; accordingly the respondent must pay the applicant's costs on the 2B scale fixed at $6,839.61.
8 Dec 2015

BODY CORPORATE 68792 v HARRY MEMELINK AND TREVOR NEIL HAMILTON [2015] NZHC 3115

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3115
Court

High Court

There was insufficient admissible evidence that the statutory demands had been withdrawn before the Body Corporate filed its originating applications; therefore the Body Corporate acted properly in commencing proceedings; the demands were subsequently withdrawn and are set aside; costs awarded to the Body Corporate are appropriate but reduced for duplication and limited hearing time.
13 Mar 2014

CAFE BRIOCHE LIMITED v AFFIN TRUSTEE LIMITED [2014] NZHC 459

Citation

[2014] NZHC 459
Court

High Court

No costs awarded because respondent had reasonable grounds to issue the demand and would likely have withdrawn it if applicant had raised its objections earlier; applicant delayed in raising grounds until filing so costs are to lie where they fall.
21 Dec 2012

VOLUMEX NOMINEES LIMITED V VESTA SOLUTIONS LIMITED HC NWP CIV 2011-443-000575

Citation

openlaw-3393f9fc_fdbc_45d7_8cce_61cbd04c35e6.pdf
Court

High Court

Applicant did not give clear notice of a dispute to respondent; respondent acted reasonably in issuing and pragmatically withdrawing the statutory demand; applicant is not entitled to costs; respondent awarded costs on scale 2B equivalent to 1.5 days.
4 Apr 2011

STRAIT FREIGHT LIMITED V PLANET LOGISTICS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2011-404-000909

Citation

openlaw-1ca766d3_96d7_4cea_ac9c_62e3e91421fd.pdf
Court

High Court

Given procedural deficiencies on both sides, uncertainty about the issuer and service of the demand, and the applicant's failure to seek withdrawal before filing, the court awarded the applicant a reduced costs award: respondent must pay costs on a 1A basis and disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
4 Aug 2010

COASTAL MORTGAGES LIMITED V COLLINS & MAY LAW HC WN CIV-2010-485-1115

Citation

openlaw-eb2f4edd_54f9_4602_a492_38ed38f3d163.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the respondent had withdrawn the statutory demand and had informed the applicant's director before the application was filed, the applicant acted unreasonably in issuing and pursuing the application; accordingly the applicant's claim for costs was rejected and the respondent was awarded scale costs on a Category 2B basis with disbursements fixed by the Registrar; indemnity costs were not awarded because the high threshold was not met.