Vietnew Corporation Limited v Shand

[2023] NZHC 1630

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE PAPAIOEA ROHE

CIV-2022-454-102

[2023] NZHC 1630

UNDER

the Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER

of an application to set aside a statutory demand issued under

s 290 of the Companies Act 1993

BETWEEN

VIETNEW CORPORATION LIMITED

Applicant

AND

JASON SHAND

Respondent

Hearing:

28 June 2023

Appearances:

J J McGuire for Applicant

P J Drummond for Respondent

Judgment:

28 June 2023

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SKELTON

[1]                 In this proceeding, the applicant seeks an order setting aside the statutory demand issued by the respondent against the applicant dated 6 December 2022.

[2]                 The circumstances are that the respondent had determinations made in his favour by the Employment Relations Authority which required the applicant to pay the respondent the total sum of $26,396.53. On 12 August 2022, the applicant filed a challenge (appeal) in the Employment Court seeking a de novo hearing. The respondent issued a statutory demand in respect of the $26,396.53 dated 6 December 2022 and served on 7 December 2022. The applicant applied to set aside the statutory demand on 16 December 2022. The respondent filed a notice of opposition dated

VIETNEW CORPORATION LIMITED v SHAND [2023] NZHC 1630 [28 June 2023]

21 December 2022. On 10 February 2013, the applicant filed an application seeking an order that the Authority’s determinations be stayed. On 28 April 2023, the application for stay was granted by the Employment Court on the condition that the sum of $26,396.53 was paid into Court within 14 days. This amount was paid into Court by the respondent within the required period. The challenge (appeal) in the Employment Court is yet to be heard.

[3]                 Following an adjournment, the application to set aside the statutory demand came on for hearing today. I indicated some preliminary views to counsel. A discussion ensued, and the parties reached an agreed position.

[4]By consent, I enter judgment in the following terms:

(a)the statutory demand issued by the respondent against the applicant dated 6 December 2022 is set aside;

(b)costs on the application to set aside the statutory demand are reserved;

(c)if the parties are unable to agree on costs, then they may file memoranda as follows:

(i)applicant to file and serve its memorandum on costs (no more than five pages);

(ii)respondent to file and serve its memorandum on costs within five working days (no more than five pages);

(iii)applicant to file and serve any memorandum in reply within two working days (no more than three pages).

(d)costs will then be dealt with on the papers.

Associate Judge Skelton

Solicitors:

Jeremy McGuire, Palmerston North for applicant Flint Law Ltd, Wellington for respondent