ACTION MEDIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v LEVIN AND MADSEN-RIES AS LIQUIDATORS OF ACTION MEDIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2016] NZHC 29

ACTION MEDIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v LEVIN AND MADSEN-RIES AS LIQUIDATORS OF ACTION MEDIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2016] NZHC 29

The judge granted the adjournment because the court had ordered particular discovery of IRD correspondence relevant to a creditor's compromise, the IRD files were not yet located and examined and there could be no assurance there was no further relevant material; in the interests of justice the trial was adjourned to allow retrieval and inspection of those documents.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 29
Parties
First Plaintiff: Action Media Limited (In Liquidation); Second Plaintiffs: Henry David Levin and Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries as Liquidators of Action Media Limited (In Liquidation); First Defendant: Sean Wesley Mitchell; Second Defendant: Farry & Co Trustees Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Companies Act 1993 Proceedings / Pre Trial — Application for Adjournment of Seven Day Trial (trial Due 15 February 2016)
Outcome
Application for adjournment granted
Legal Topics
Creditor's Compromise, Discovery, Adjournment, Interlocutory Applications
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Creditor's Compromise Discovery Adjournment Interlocutory Applications

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Action Media Limited (In Liquidation)

First Plaintiff

Henry David Levin and Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries as Liquidators of Action Media Limited (In Liquidation)

Second Plaintiffs

Sean Wesley Mitchell

First Defendant

Farry & Co Trustees Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Companies Act 1993 Proceedings / Pre Trial — Application for Adjournment of Seven Day Trial (trial Due 15 February 2016)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial should be adjourned pending provision of supplementary discovery ordered on 9 December 2015
  2. 2 Whether IRD files and correspondence relating to a creditor's compromise must be located and inspected before trial to ensure fairness
  3. 3 Whether any prejudice to the plaintiffs from an adjournment outweighs the need for complete discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The judge granted the adjournment because the court had ordered particular discovery of IRD correspondence relevant to a creditor's compromise, the IRD files were not yet located and examined and there could be no assurance there was no further relevant material; in the interests of justice the trial was adjourned to allow retrieval and inspection of those documents.

Court Disposition

Application for adjournment granted

Orders

  • Application to adjourn trial granted; trial scheduled to commence 15 February 2016 is adjourned
  • Registry to be advised and matter to be considered for a backup fixture once IRD files located