PARKER CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (NZ) LIMITED V ADEN ELECTRICAL LIMITED HC WN CIV-2005-485-1334 [2006] NZHC 61 (13 February 2006)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
WELLINGTON REGISTRY
CIV-2005-485-1334
UNDER The Companies Act 1993
BETWEEN PARKER CONSTRUCTION
MANAGEMENT (NZ) LIMITED
Plaintiff
AND ADEN ELECTRICAL LIMITED
Defendant
Hearing: 10 February 2006
Appearances: G.W.D. Manktelow for Plaintiff
R.J. Buchanan for Defendant
Judgment: 13 February 2006
In accordance with r540(4) I direct the Registrar to endorse this judgment with a
delivery time of 2.00pm on the 13th day of February 2006.
JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE D.I. GENDALL
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff applies to set aside a statutory demand dated 16 June 2005
issued by the defendant. The statutory demand claims $32,649.34, described as
being for "electrical services and product supplied between March 2002 and May
2005".
[2] The application is opposed by the defendant.
PARKER CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT (NZ) LIMITED V ADEN ELECTRICAL LIMITED HC WN CIV-2005-485-1334 13 February 2006
Background Facts
[3] Between March 2002 and May 2005 the defendant, an electrical contractor,
provided electrical services and products for the plaintiff on several of its
construction contracts. These included contracts at Scots College, Evans Bay
Intermediate School, St. Thomas More Church, Normandale School, and Sacred
Heart College.
[4] Although the amount originally claimed in the statutory demand
was $32,649.34, the defendant acknowledged (in an affidavit of Robyn Janice Ramsay
dated 13 July 2005 (paragraph 14) that the final amount due from the plaintiff was
actually much less than this $32,649.34. It appears from that 13 July 2005 affidavit
that in fact the defendant from that time was claiming the following reduced
amounts:
Scots College Contract $8,411.29
Evans Bay Intermediate School Contract $4,801.11
St. Thomas More Church Contract $2,813.42
Normandale School Contract $989.51
Sacred Heart College Contract $1,438.37
_____________
$18,453.70
[5] Following the issue of the statutory demand, it appears from counsel's
current submissions that a number of the reduced contractual claims noted in
paragraph [4] above have now been resolved.
[6] First, the Sacred Heart claim noted at $1,438.37 has apparently been
settled with a lesser sum ($1,001.41) paid on or about 26 July 2005.
[7] Secondly, the Normandale School claim totalling $989.51 was also settled
when a slightly lesser payment of $962.68 was apparently made to the defendant,
again, on or about 26 July 2005.
[8] Thirdly, as to the $2,813.42 St. Thomas More Church claim, this too was
resolved when that amount was paid to the defendant apparently once issues
concerning a warranty were resolved.
[9] Fourthly as to the $4,801.11 Evans Bay Intermediate School claim, this has also been virtually resolved. As recently as 25 January 2006, a form of settlement agreement was entered into between the parties. Under this settlement agreement the claim was to be settled, it seems, with $269.28 to be paid immediately, and $1,473.85 to be held as retention monies "withheld as per the conditions of contract and...released accordingly". Counsel confirm, however, that this $269.28 has still not as yet been paid. And I note that, before me, no evidence was provided as to the terms upon which the agreed retentions amount of $1,473.85 was to be ultimately released.
[10] As to the final amount claimed by the defendant of $8,411.29 relating to the Scots College Contract, the evidence before the Court is, at the very least, confused and complex both as to the precise calculation of this amount, and also as to whether the amount is payable to the defendant now and overdue.
[11] What is clear with respect to the Scots College Contract (entered into in
2002) is that it pre-dates the coming into force of the Construction Contracts Act
2002 on 1 April 2003.
[12] Accordingly, the "pay when paid clause" included in clause 5(E) of this
Contract on its face applies, and may mean that the plaintiff is not required to pay to
the defendant the retention monies under this Contract until the plaintiff has received
these amounts from Scots College as the principal.
[13] The evidence before the Court seems to indicate that Scots College is
retaining monies under its head contract with the plaintiff with regard to this job,
although it is not clear for what reason this is occurring.
[14] What is also clear with respect to the Scots College Contract is that the
defendant's work on this project was completed some considerable time ago, and if
indeed monies are outstanding under this Contract to the defendant, then the delay in
making payment has been considerable.
Counsel's Arguments and My Decision
[15] The present application is made under s290 Companies Act 1993. Under
s290(4) the Court is given a discretion to set aside a statutory demand if it is satisfied
that:
(a) There is a substantial dispute whether or nor the debt is owing or
is due; or
(b) The company appears to have a counterclaim, set-off or cross
demand and the amount specified in the demand less the amount of the counterclaim, set-off or cross demand is less than the prescribed amount; or
(c) The demand ought to be set aside on other grounds.
[16] To invoke this discretion, an applicant plaintiff must go further than merely
assert the existence of a dispute or some counterclaim or set-off. It must be shown
that there is a genuine and substantial dispute as to the existence of the debt and,
further, that it would be unfair to allow this dispute to be resolved through the liquidation
provisions of the Companies Act 1993 rather than by actions in the usual way see Taxi Trucks Limited v Nicholson [1989] 2 NZLR 297 , 291, and Pink Pages Publications Limited v Team Communications Limited (1986) 3 NZCLC 99 , 764.
[17] As to the issue of a disputed debt, the onus rests upon the plaintiff to satisfy
the Court that the debt is disputed see Re Scott Plumbers Limited (1994) 2 NZCLC
99 , 184.
[18] It has also been said that the standard required is proof sufficient to establish
an arguable case Queen City Residential Limited v Patterson Co-Partners
Architects (No. 2) (1995) 7 NZCLC 260 ,936.
[19] Before me, the principal ground advanced by the plaintiff to set aside the
statutory demand was that there is a substantial dispute whether or not the debt
claimed in the demand is owing or is due. No evidence was advanced
or submissions made as to the solvency of the plaintiff company.
[20] The starting point here is that the defendant clearly acknowledges that its
claim to $32,649.34 in the statutory demand is overstated.
[21] As to this, Brookers Company and Securities Law at para CA290.06 in part
states.
A defect or irregularity in a statutory demand is not by itself sufficient
reason for the demand to be set aside unless substantial injustice would
result. This is stated clearly in ss5.
This comment goes on to state:
A defect includes a material misstatement of the amount due and a material
misdescription of the debt referred to in the demand: ss6. In Bateman
Television Limited v Coleridge Finance Co Limited [1969] NZLR 795 (CA)
it was held that though there may be a bona fide dispute concerning the
precise indebtedness of the debtor, if it is clear that there is sufficient owing
to found a petition, and the company is insolvent, an order will be made.
[22] Here, since the statutory demand was originally issued on 16 June 2005, the
plaintiff has made or agreed to make payments to the defendant in respect of the
Sacred Heart Contract, the Normandale School Contract, the St. Thomas More
Church Contract, and the Evans Bay Intermediate Contract.
[23] The remaining outstanding dispute the plaintiff claims exists does relate
solely to the Scots College Contract.
[24] But returning for a moment to the Evans Bay Intermediate School Contract,
from the settlement agreement reached between the parties on 25 June 2005, it is
clear that $269.28 was due for payment from that date. Counsel acknowledge,
however, that it remains unpaid at this point. Further, the retentions amount of
$1,473.85 is to be paid at some future time in terms of the conditions of this
Contract. At the very least, therefore, the plaintiff is clearly indebted to the
defendant at this point in the outstanding sum of $268.28.
[25] Turning now to the Scots College Contract, as I have noted above, the actual
legal position with respect to the $8,411.29 amount claimed by the defendant is
murky to say the very least. The statements and contract values presented in
evidence before the Court are complex and include a range of variations and
additional claims, some of which seem to be accepted and some disputed.
[26] To determine the precise amount owing by the plaintiff under the Scots
College Contract at this point is difficult.
[27] What is clear is that today the sum of $1,674.46 has been tendered to pay off
monies owing to the defendant under this Contract, and according to the plaintiff the
sum $6,736.83 remains due as a retention when the final retention monies are
received by the plaintiff from the principal Scots College.
[28] The plaintiff relies upon the "pay when paid clause" (clause 5(E) of the
Contract) to justify the retention of this $6,736.83 at this point. This is strongly
disputed by the defendant.
[29] I turn now to s290(4) Companies Act 1993, and the requirement that the
plaintiff bears the onus to satisfy the Court that the debt in the statutory demand is
disputed. From the material before the Court I reach the conclusion that the plaintiff
here has done sufficient to meet this test. Clearly, with the exception of the $269.28
presently outstanding under the settlement agreement for the Evans Bay Intermediate
School Contract, the plaintiff has put before the Court sufficient material generally
undisputed by the defendant to show that the only amounts still claimed to be
potentially outstanding under the statutory demand are the $1,473.85 retention under
the Evans Bay Intermediate School Contract and the $6,736.83 retention under the
Scots College Contract, both of which, it is arguable, on their face may not be
contractually due for payment to the defendant at this point.
[30] Mr Buchanan for the defendant argued before me that in this case, the
plaintiff has shown a history of delay and non-payment under its Contract,
and further that there has been no complaint from Scots College itself as to the quality of
the defendant's electrical work under the Scots College Contract. The only
conclusion, he maintains, must be that the plaintiff is yet again looking to manufacture
reasons for continuing to delay or dispute payments properly due to the defendant.
[31] It may be that there is something in this contention, but on the material before
the Court, I am unable to say that the remaining monies claimed by the defendant
must be seen as clearly undisputed.
[32] On balance, therefore, I am of the view that the plaintiff has put before the
Court sufficientmaterial to justify its claim that there is a substantial dispute whether
or not remaining monies under the statutory demand are due. Clearly, the sum of
$269.28 which I have noted at paragraph [24] above is due for payment and outstanding, but this amount is under the prescribed amount of $1,000.00 provided for in s289 Companies Act 1993.
[33] For these reasons, the present application to set aside the statutory demand
succeeds. An order is now made that the statutory demand issued by the defendant
against the plaintiff dated 16 June 2005 is set aside.
[34] As to costs, these are reserved. If costs are in issue between the parties, then
counsel are to file appropriate memoranda within 28 days of the date of this judgment, and unless they give notice that they wish to be heard on this issue, I will decide the question of costs upon the basis of the material filed.
Associate Judge D.I. Gendall
Solicitors: Guy & Toby Manktelow, Barristers & Solicitors, Lower Hutt for Plaintiff
Terrace Legal, Wellington for Defendant