BRIDGMAN and McCLOY [2014] NZHC 1337

BRIDGMAN and McCLOY [2014] NZHC 1337

The court granted the without‑notice application and extensions because the administrators demonstrated that the administration was complex, a sale likely to maximise returns was in active negotiation and likely to be prejudiced by strict compliance with the statutory timeframes, there was no demonstrated prejudice to creditors or employees, support from the principal secured creditor and proposed publicity mitigated concerns, and granting the extensions advanced the objects of Part 15A of the Companies Act 1993.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 1337
Parties
Applicant (administrator): David John Bridgman; Applicant (administrator): Colin Thomas McCloy; Company (subject of Administration): Postie Plus Group Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
13 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time Under Part 15 a of the Companies Act 1993 / Without Notice Application on the Papers for Extensions of the Convening Period and the Notice of Termination Period
Outcome
Application granted: leave to commence without notice granted; convening period and notice-of-termination period extended to 1 September 2014; publicity and leave-to-apply orders made; costs treated as an administrators' expense.
Legal Topics
Voluntary Administration, Extension of Convening Period, Statutory Moratorium, Termination of Employment Notices, Without Notice Applications
Companies Law Insolvency Employment Law Civil Procedure Voluntary Administration Extension of Convening Period Statutory Moratorium Termination of Employment Notices +1 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David John Bridgman

Applicant (administrator)

Colin Thomas McCloy

Applicant (administrator)

Postie Plus Group Limited

Company (subject of Administration)

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time Under Part 15 a of the Companies Act 1993 / Without Notice Application on the Papers for Extensions of the Convening Period and the Notice of Termination Period

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant extensions under s239AT(3) and s239Y(4) of the Companies Act 1993
  2. 2 Whether the application may be heard without notice to creditors and employees
  3. 3 Whether the administrators demonstrated sufficient reason and lack of prejudice to justify extensions

Ratio Decidendi

The court granted the without‑notice application and extensions because the administrators demonstrated that the administration was complex, a sale likely to maximise returns was in active negotiation and likely to be prejudiced by strict compliance with the statutory timeframes, there was no demonstrated prejudice to creditors or employees, support from the principal secured creditor and proposed publicity mitigated concerns, and granting the extensions advanced the objects of Part 15A of the Companies Act 1993.

Court Disposition

Application granted: leave to commence without notice granted; convening period and notice-of-termination period extended to 1 September 2014; publicity and leave-to-apply orders made; costs treated as an administrators' expense.

Orders

  • Applicants granted leave to commence the proceeding without notice
  • Period defined in s239AT(2) of the Companies Act extended by 61 days up to and including 1 September 2014 under s239AT(3)