Ezipaint Limited (in liq) v Peters Holdings Trustee
Limited [2017] NZHC 3139
This case is a good reminder that a court will not enter a
liquidation order where there are genuine grounds to believe that a
debt is disputed, regardless of whether a defendant debtor has
applied to have a statutory demand set aside.
The liquidators of Ezipaint Limited (Ezipaint)
served a statutory demand on the defendant. The defendant did not
comply with the demand, nor did it take any steps to set the
statutory demand aside. Ezipaint applied for liquidation, at which
time the defendant disputed that the debt was, in fact owing, and
sought to challenge the validity of the statutory demand.
Associate Judge Doogue observed that the fact that the defendant
had failed to apply to set aside the statutory demand did not
prevent it from disputing the existence of the debt at the point
where the Court was hearing an opposed application for liquidation.
However, given the presumption of
