New Style Holdings Limited v Revolution Technologies Limited

[2016] NZHC 867

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2016-485-34 [2016] NZHC 867

BETWEEN

NEW STYLE HOLDINGS LIMITED

Applicant

AND

REVOLUTION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing:	3 May 2016
Counsel:	J D Haig for the Applicant No appearance for the Respondent Mr Reid, a director of the Respondent, in attendance
Judgment:	3 May 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SMITH

[1]      The  applicant  applied  on  27  January  2016  for  an  order  setting  aside  a statutory demand issued by the respondent on 13 January 2016.

[2]      In  response  to  the  setting  aside  application,  Mr  Reid,  a  director  of  the respondent, filed a document described as a statement of counterclaim.  He also filed an affirmation in support.

[3]      The application was called before Associate Judge Osborne on 5 April 2016. At  that  hearing,  Mr  Dewar,  who  had  previously  acted  for  the  respondent,  was granted leave to withdraw.  Mr Reid attended the hearing (as he has this morning), and the Associate Judge gave leave to Mr Reid to be heard that day in opposition to the application.  The Associate Judge concluded that Mr Reid had told him nothing indicating that the case was appropriate for the company to be granted leave to be represented by its director.  The Associate Judge declined leave to the respondent to

be represented by its director.

NEW STYLE HOLDINGS LIMITED v REVOLUTION TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED [2016] NZHC 867 [3

May 2016]

[4]      The Associate Judge made certain directions on the basis that, if counsel were appointed to act for the respondent within 10 working days, a fixture would be allocated to hear the application on a defended basis.  If there was no notification of the appointment of counsel within the 10 working day period, the Associate Judge reserved leave to the applicant to have the proceeding brought on in the next list before me to have the application granted on the papers.

[5]      The respondent has not appointed counsel, and the case has accordingly been listed today for hearing.

[6]      I have explained today to Mr Reid that he has no right of audience on behalf of the respondent.   Nor did he have any entitlement to file Court documents on behalf of the respondent: the privileges of filing documents on behalf of a company and  (subject  to  a  very  limited number of  exceptions  which  do  not  apply here) appearing before the High Court on behalf of a company, are reserved to barristers and solicitors.

[7]      I have considered the affidavit of Mr Boyko filed in support of the originating application, and on the face of it, it appears that there is a sufficient basis of dispute (primarily concerned with delays in getting the work done) that it is appropriate to make the order setting aside the statutory demand.  I make an order accordingly.

[8]      I note in passing the reference in Associate Judge Osborne’s Minute dated

5 April 2016 that Mr Reid apparently advised that the respondent is insolvent, and that that position would be worsened if the company were required to retain counsel. However that does not in my view justify the grant of audience rights to Mr Reid.  I agree with the Associate Judge’s decision in that regard.

[9]      Mr Haig applies for costs on a 2B basis.  I make an order accordingly, with disbursements to be fixed by the registrar.

Associate Judge Smith