100 INVESTMENTS LTD v WALKER [2023] NZHC 3740

100 INVESTMENTS LTD v WALKER [2023] NZHC 3740

Leave for LPF to reapply was refused because r 7.52 applied and LPF did not establish the requisite 'special circumstances'; SPF's application for security for costs was refused because it failed to establish an evidential foundation from which an adverse inference of Mr Whitley's inability to pay could be drawn (funding and trustee-held properties did not suffice); LPF's application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise a seriously arguable error with reasonable prospects of success and did not justify the cost and delay of an appeal.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 3740
Parties
First Plaintiff (civ 2019 404 1160); First Defendant (civ 2022 404 274): 100 Investments Ltd; Second Plaintiff (civ 2019 404 1160); Second Defendant (civ 2022 404 274): FTG Securities Ltd; Third Plaintiff (civ 2019 404 1160); Third Defendant (civ 2022 404 274): RFD Finance Ltd; Fourth Plaintiff (civ 2019 404 1160); Fourth Defendant (civ 2022 404 274): Tomanovich Holdings Ltd; First Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Fifth Defendant (civ 2022 404 274): Robert Bruce Walker; Second Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Sixth Defendant (civ 2022 404 274): John Marshall Scutter; Third Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Seventh Defendant (civ 2022 404 274): LPF Group Ltd; Fourth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Eighth Defendant (civ 2022 404 274): SPF No 10 Ltd (In Liquidation); Fifth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); First Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274): Kevin John Whitley as Liquidator of Property Ventures Ltd; Sixth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Second Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274): Property Ventures Ltd (In Liquidation); Seventh Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Fourth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274): Cashel Ventures Ltd (In Receivership and Liquidation); Eighth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Fifth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274): Tay Ventures Ltd (In Receivership and Liquidation); Ninth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Sixth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274): Livingspace Properties Ltd (In Liquidation); Tenth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Thirteenth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274): Tuam Ventures Ltd (In Liquidation); Eleventh Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Eighth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274): Castle Street Ventures Ltd (In Liquidation); Twelfth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Ninth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274): Lichfield Ventures Ltd (In Liquidation); Thirteenth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Eleventh Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274): St Asaph Ventures Ltd (In Liquidation); Fourteenth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Seventh Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274): Beechnest Ltd (In Receivership and Liquidation); Fifteenth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Tenth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274): 92 Lichfield Ltd (In Receivership and Liquidation); Sixteenth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Twelfth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274): Montecristo Construction Company Ltd (In Liquidation); Seventeenth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Third Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274): Five Mile Holdings Ltd (In Liquidation)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Consolidated Civil Proceedings: Liquidator's Proceeding and Secured Creditors' Proceeding / Interlocutory Applications (discovery, Directions, Admissibility Challenges, Security for Costs); Pre Trial With Four Week Trial Scheduled 26 February 2024
Outcome
All three applications dismissed: LPF's application for leave to bring a second security for costs application declined; SPF's application for security for costs declined; LPF's application for leave to appeal declined.
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Discovery, Admissibility of Evidence, Leave to Appeal, Litigation Funding, Liquidator Proceedings
Civil Procedure Insolvency Evidence Law Costs Security for Costs Discovery Admissibility of Evidence Leave to Appeal +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

100 Investments Ltd

First Plaintiff (civ 2019 404 1160); First Defendant (civ 2022 404 274)

FTG Securities Ltd

Second Plaintiff (civ 2019 404 1160); Second Defendant (civ 2022 404 274)

RFD Finance Ltd

Third Plaintiff (civ 2019 404 1160); Third Defendant (civ 2022 404 274)

Tomanovich Holdings Ltd

Fourth Plaintiff (civ 2019 404 1160); Fourth Defendant (civ 2022 404 274)

Robert Bruce Walker

First Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Fifth Defendant (civ 2022 404 274)

John Marshall Scutter

Second Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Sixth Defendant (civ 2022 404 274)

LPF Group Ltd

Third Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Seventh Defendant (civ 2022 404 274)

SPF No 10 Ltd (In Liquidation)

Fourth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Eighth Defendant (civ 2022 404 274)

Kevin John Whitley as Liquidator of Property Ventures Ltd

Fifth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); First Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274)

Property Ventures Ltd (In Liquidation)

Sixth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Second Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274)

Cashel Ventures Ltd (In Receivership and Liquidation)

Seventh Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Fourth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274)

Tay Ventures Ltd (In Receivership and Liquidation)

Eighth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Fifth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274)

Livingspace Properties Ltd (In Liquidation)

Ninth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Sixth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274)

Tuam Ventures Ltd (In Liquidation)

Tenth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Thirteenth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274)

Castle Street Ventures Ltd (In Liquidation)

Eleventh Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Eighth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274)

Lichfield Ventures Ltd (In Liquidation)

Twelfth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Ninth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274)

St Asaph Ventures Ltd (In Liquidation)

Thirteenth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Eleventh Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274)

Beechnest Ltd (In Receivership and Liquidation)

Fourteenth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Seventh Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274)

92 Lichfield Ltd (In Receivership and Liquidation)

Fifteenth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Tenth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274)

Montecristo Construction Company Ltd (In Liquidation)

Sixteenth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Twelfth Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274)

Five Mile Holdings Ltd (In Liquidation)

Seventeenth Defendant (civ 2019 404 1160); Third Plaintiff (civ 2022 404 274)

Procedural Posture

Consolidated Civil Proceedings: Liquidator's Proceeding and Secured Creditors' Proceeding / Interlocutory Applications (discovery, Directions, Admissibility Challenges, Security for Costs); Pre Trial With Four Week Trial Scheduled 26 February 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether r 7.52 leave required and, if so, whether special circumstances exist for LPF to reapply for security for costs
  2. 2 Whether there is reason to believe the liquidator (Mr Whitley) would be unable to pay costs if unsuccessful
  3. 3 Whether funded litigation permits inference of inability to pay by a liquidator

Ratio Decidendi

Leave for LPF to reapply was refused because r 7.52 applied and LPF did not establish the requisite 'special circumstances'; SPF's application for security for costs was refused because it failed to establish an evidential foundation from which an adverse inference of Mr Whitley's inability to pay could be drawn (funding and trustee-held properties did not suffice); LPF's application for leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise a seriously arguable error with reasonable prospects of success and did not justify the cost and delay of an appeal.

Court Disposition

All three applications dismissed: LPF's application for leave to bring a second security for costs application declined; SPF's application for security for costs declined; LPF's application for leave to appeal declined.

Orders

  • Declined: LPF's application for leave to bring a second application for security for costs under r 7.52
  • Declined: SPF's application for security for costs against the liquidator plaintiffs