Risecorp Investment Trustee Limited v Staywell Hospitality Management Limited

[2015] NZHC 1552

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-501 [2015] NZHC 1552

UNDER

the Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER

of an application to set aside a statutory demand

BETWEEN

RISECORP INVESTMENT TRUSTEE LIMITED

Applicant

AND

STAYWELL HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LIMITED Respondent

Hearing:	28 May 2015
Appearances:	Ms J S Cooper for Applicant Mr D T Broadmore for Respondent (on papers)
Judgment:	6 July 2015

COSTS JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE J P DOOGUE

This judgment was delivered by me on

06.07.15 at 4 pm, pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

RISECORP INVESTMENT TRUSTEE LIMITED v STAYWELL HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1552 [6 July 2015]

[1]      I thank counsel for the helpful memoranda they have both filed concerning the matter of costs.

[2]      The view I take is that a broad approach should be taken as to which part has failed which is a relevant matter to take into account pursuant to r 14.2.   I do not consider that fine-grained analyses of the extent by which the party failed are called for under the Rules. To take such an approach would derivate from the principle stated  at  r 14.2(g) that  so  far  as  possible  the  determination  of  costs  should  be predictable and expeditious.

[3]      If the Court were to exceed to such an approach it would also be put in a position of having to make   a decision supplementary to the main decision determining which debts were legitimately claimed for and which not.   I do not consider that it is feasible for the Court to resolve those sort of disputes when considering an application to set aside a statutory demand.

[4]      The  terms  of  s  290(4)  of  the  Company’s Act  1993  direct  the  Court  to determine whether there is a substantial dispute whether or not the debt is owing or due.  I do not consider that it also requires the Court to go on and determine, in the event that the conclusion is that there is a substantial debt, how much of the debt claimed was due.

[5]      For those reasons I accept the submissions of the applicant and approve the

2B costs set out in the schedule annexed to Ms Cooper’s memorandum.

J.P. Doogue

Associate Judge