WALKER v HENDERSON (A Bankrupt) [2018] NZHC 59

WALKER v HENDERSON (A Bankrupt) [2018] NZHC 59

Given the substantial quantum and nature of the companies' liabilities, the bankruptcy adjudication, the Associate Judge's and Court of Appeal's findings and orders, and that plaintiffs reasonably commenced and pursued the banning application until discontinuance after appellate resolution, the presumption in favour...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 59
Parties
First Plaintiff: Robert Bruce Walker; Second Plaintiff: Property Ventures Limited (in receivership and in liquidation); Third Plaintiff: Five Mile Holdings Limited; Fourth Plaintiff: Cashel Ventures Limited (in liquidation); Fifth Plaintiff: Tay Ventures Limited (in receivership and in liquidation); Sixth Plaintiff: Livingspace Properties Limited (in receivership and in liquidation); Seventh Plaintiff: Beechnest Ventures Limited (in liquidation); Eighth Plaintiff: Tuam Ventures Limited (in receivership and in liquidation); Ninth Plaintiff: Castle Stret Ventures Limited (in receivership and in liquidation); Tenth Plaintiff: Lichfield Ventures Limited (in receivership and in liquidation); Eleventh Plaintiff: 92 Lichfield Limited (in receivership and in liquidation); Twelfth Plaintiff: St Asaph Ventures Limited (in liquidation); Thirteenth Plaintiff: Montecristo Construction Company Limited (in liquidation); Fourth Defendant: David Ian Henderson (a bankrupt)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Director Banning Order Under S 383 Companies Act 1993; Related to Bankruptcy and Liquidation Proceedings / Costs Judgment Following Discontinuance (on Costs as Between Plaintiffs and Fourth Defendant)
Outcome
Costs to lie where they fall between the plaintiffs and Mr David Ian Henderson
Legal Topics
Director Banning Orders, Discontinuance and Costs, Automatic Discharge From Bankruptcy, Conduct of Liquidators
Company Law Bankruptcy Law Civil Procedure Costs Director Banning Orders Discontinuance and Costs Automatic Discharge From Bankruptcy Conduct of Liquidators

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Bruce Walker

First Plaintiff

Property Ventures Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)

Second Plaintiff

Five Mile Holdings Limited

Third Plaintiff

Cashel Ventures Limited (in liquidation)

Fourth Plaintiff

Tay Ventures Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)

Fifth Plaintiff

Livingspace Properties Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)

Sixth Plaintiff

Beechnest Ventures Limited (in liquidation)

Seventh Plaintiff

Tuam Ventures Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)

Eighth Plaintiff

Castle Stret Ventures Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)

Ninth Plaintiff

Lichfield Ventures Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)

Tenth Plaintiff

92 Lichfield Limited (in receivership and in liquidation)

Eleventh Plaintiff

St Asaph Ventures Limited (in liquidation)

Twelfth Plaintiff

Montecristo Construction Company Limited (in liquidation)

Thirteenth Plaintiff

David Ian Henderson (a bankrupt)

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Director Banning Order Under S 383 Companies Act 1993; Related to Bankruptcy and Liquidation Proceedings / Costs Judgment Following Discontinuance (on Costs as Between Plaintiffs and Fourth Defendant)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant entitled to costs after plaintiffs discontinued claim
  2. 2 Whether the presumption that a discontinuing plaintiff pays costs should be displaced
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs acted reasonably in commencing and continuing the proceeding until discontinuance

Ratio Decidendi

Given the substantial quantum and nature of the companies' liabilities, the bankruptcy adjudication, the Associate Judge's and Court of Appeal's findings and orders, and that plaintiffs reasonably commenced and pursued the banning application until discontinuance after appellate resolution, the presumption in favour of defendant costs was displaced and costs should lie where they fall.

Court Disposition

Costs to lie where they fall between the plaintiffs and Mr David Ian Henderson

Orders

  • Costs between the plaintiffs and Mr David Ian Henderson to lie where they fall