LINK TECHNOLOGY 2000 LTD v PETERLAND LTD [2021] NZHC 428

LINK TECHNOLOGY 2000 LTD v PETERLAND LTD [2021] NZHC 428

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed the statutory threshold: he did not demonstrate he was a person suffering loss or damage from the Assignee's disclaimer (the primary causes of action were company-only choses in action and thus did not injure him personally) and his sole personal cause (patent claim) lacked merit; accordingly no vesting order under s119 was made and, alternatively, vesting would have been unfair given delay and lack of demonstrated funding.

Citation
[2021] NZHC 428
Parties
First Plaintiff (in Liquidation): Link Technology 2000 Limited; Second Plaintiff: Harry Memelink (as trustee of Link Trust No 1); First Defendant: Peterland Limited; Second Defendant: Peter Jeremy Dawson Goodson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
9 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application to Vest Proceedings Under S119 Insolvency Act 2006 Following Disclaimer by Official Assignee / High Court Judgment on Application to Vest (hearing 22 Feb 2021; Judgment 9 Mar 2021)
Outcome
Application by second plaintiff to vest proceedings dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclaimer by Assignee, Vesting of Disclaimed Property, Choses in Action, Lease Renewal Dispute, Conversion, Patent Validity and Enforcement, Delay and Prejudice, Costs
Insolvency Law Company Law Contract (lease) Property Law Intellectual Property (patent) Disclaimer by Assignee Vesting of Disclaimed Property Choses in Action +5 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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Link Technology 2000 Limited

First Plaintiff (in Liquidation)

Harry Memelink (as trustee of Link Trust No 1)

Second Plaintiff

Peterland Limited

First Defendant

Peter Jeremy Dawson Goodson

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application to Vest Proceedings Under S119 Insolvency Act 2006 Following Disclaimer by Official Assignee / High Court Judgment on Application to Vest (hearing 22 Feb 2021; Judgment 9 Mar 2021)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant (bankrupt) is a person suffering loss or damage as a result of the Official Assignee's disclaimer under s119 Insolvency Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether it is fair for the Court to vest the disclaimed litigation rights in the applicant under s119(3)
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded fourth cause of action (patent-based claim) discloses an arguable cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed the statutory threshold: he did not demonstrate he was a person suffering loss or damage from the Assignee's disclaimer (the primary causes of action were company-only choses in action and thus did not injure him personally) and his sole personal cause (patent claim) lacked merit; accordingly no vesting order under s119 was made and, alternatively, vesting would have been unfair given delay and lack of demonstrated funding.

Court Disposition

Application by second plaintiff to vest proceedings dismissed

Orders

  • Application to vest proceedings in second plaintiff dismissed
  • If parties cannot agree costs, respondents to file costs memorandum within 7 days, applicant to file response within further 7 days, and any reply within further 3 days