15 Hopetoun Limited v Visser

Case [2018] NZHC 220


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KOTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-2633

[2018] NZHC 220

BETWEEN

15 HOPETOUN LIMITED

Applicant

AND

FREDERICK VISSER

Respondent

Hearing: 30 January 2018 (on papers)

Appearances:

R Butler for Applicant

J J K Spring for Respondent

Judgment:

22 February 2018


JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN


This judgment was delivered by me on

22.02.18 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

15 HOPETOUN LIMITED v FREDERICK VISSER [2018] NZHC 220 [22 February 2018]

[1]                 Issues of costs arise as a result of the applicant successfully applying to set aside the respondent’s statutory demand.

[2]                 The statutory demand had been served following entry of judgment against the applicant in the District Court for a sum of $45,199.30. The respondent’s application for summary judgment had been opposed in the District Court.

[3]                 Two days after that judgment the respondent’s solicitors demanded payment of the judgment sum within two days. Two days thereafter the respondent issued a statutory demand seeking payment of the judgment sum. An application to set aside the demand was filed and served and at the same time an appeal against the District Court judgment was lodged.

[4]The respondent took no steps to oppose the setting aside application.

[5]                 In the Court’s view the solicitors letter of demand and the issue of the statutory demand occurred at a time when the respondent did not have reasonable cause to believe the applicant was insolvent. The respondent’s actions were therefore pre- emptive. His decision not to oppose the setting aside application was appropriate but does not vindicate the actions earlier taken.

[6]                 2B costs should be payable by the respondent but in the amount calculated by counsel for the respondent namely $4,460.

Associate Judge Christiansen

Details
AGLC
15 Hopetoun Limited v Visser [2018] NZHC 220
Case
[2018] NZHC 220
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, heard the matter of 15 Hopetoun Limited versus Frederick Visser. This case centred around an application by 15 Hopetoun Limited to set aside a statutory demand issued by Frederick Visser. The dispute originated from a judgment entered against 15 Hopetoun Limited in the District Court for a sum of $45,199.30, following Frederick Visser's application for summary judgment. Two days after this judgment, Visser's solicitors demanded payment, and subsequently, a statutory demand was issued. 15 Hopetoun Limited then filed an application to set aside the statutory demand and appealed the District Court judgment simultaneously. Visser did not oppose the setting aside application.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Frederick Visser's actions in demanding payment and issuing a statutory demand were justified, given that he did not have reasonable cause to believe 15 Hopetoun Limited was insolvent at the time. The court needed to determine if Visser's actions were preemptive and whether his decision not to oppose the setting aside application absolved him of liability for costs.

The court found that Visser's solicitors' letter of demand and the issuance of the statutory demand occurred at a time when Visser did not have reasonable cause to believe 15 Hopetoun Limited was insolvent. Therefore, these actions were preemptive. While Visser's decision not to oppose the setting aside application was deemed appropriate, it did not exonerate the earlier actions. The court concluded that 2B costs should be payable by Visser, but in the amount calculated by counsel for the respondent, which was $4,460.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.