GRANT AND KHOV AS LIQUIDATORS OF BLAKE STREET TRUSTEE LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v CHEVIN [2015] NZHC 3135

GRANT AND KHOV AS LIQUIDATORS OF BLAKE STREET TRUSTEE LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v CHEVIN [2015] NZHC 3135

The Associate Judge did not err: the breaches were minor and remedied promptly, no substantial prejudice to plaintiffs was shown, and justice required allowing the defendants to be heard on the merits; the Associate Judge's balancing of SM v LFDB factors and award of costs made the decision well within lawful discretion.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 3135
Parties
Plaintiffs: Damien Grant; Steven Khov (Liquidators of Blake Street Trustee Ltd (in liquidation)); First Defendant: Peter Louis Chevin; Second Defendant: Anne-Marie Chevin; Third Defendant: Peter Ross Hill
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
9 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Liquidation Proceeding Under the Companies Act 1993 / Application for Review of Associate Judge's Interlocutory Decision Concerning Compliance With Directions/'unless' Order
Outcome
Application for review denied; Associate Judge's decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Liquidators' Actions, Unless Orders, Non Compliance Sanctions, Judicial Discretion, Costs Orders
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Liquidators' Actions Unless Orders Non Compliance Sanctions Judicial Discretion Costs Orders

Case Brief

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Damien Grant; Steven Khov (Liquidators of Blake Street Trustee Ltd (in liquidation))

Plaintiffs

Peter Louis Chevin

First Defendant

Anne-Marie Chevin

Second Defendant

Peter Ross Hill

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Liquidation Proceeding Under the Companies Act 1993 / Application for Review of Associate Judge's Interlocutory Decision Concerning Compliance With Directions/'unless' Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Associate Judge erred in excusing non-compliance with court directions/ an 'unless' order
  2. 2 Whether an 'unless' order was made and its peremptory consequences
  3. 3 Whether the exercise of discretion to allow defendants to continue to defend was within lawful bounds

Ratio Decidendi

The Associate Judge did not err: the breaches were minor and remedied promptly, no substantial prejudice to plaintiffs was shown, and justice required allowing the defendants to be heard on the merits; the Associate Judge's balancing of SM v LFDB factors and award of costs made the decision well within lawful discretion.

Court Disposition

Application for review denied; Associate Judge's decision affirmed

Orders

  • Application for review dismissed
  • Costs awarded against the liquidators on a 2B basis