QUEENSLAND MAINTENANCE SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v ZULLO PROPERTY GROUP (NZ) LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2857

QUEENSLAND MAINTENANCE SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v ZULLO PROPERTY GROUP (NZ) LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2857

Exclude clause 6 of form G38 because the freezing order is limited to NZD 1,000,000, other assets exist to meet defendants' expenses, the property is not a trading asset and therefore ordinary course disposal is inapplicable; variation remains available. On costs, neither party should recover because both had a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 2857
Parties
First Plaintiff: QUEENSLAND MAINTENANCE SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION); Second Plaintiff: GARETH RUSSEL HOOLE; Second Plaintiff: CLIVE ROBERT BISH; First Defendant: ZULLO PROPERTY GROUP (NZ) LIMITED; Second Defendant: ZULLO HOLDINGS (NZ) LIMITED; Third Defendant: BRIGHT HORIZONS NEW ZEALAND CHILDCARE LIMITED; Fourth Defendant: FRANK ZULLO
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings Freezing Order / Judgment on Freezing Order and Costs (on the Papers)
Outcome
Freezing order granted in plaintiffs' form dated 5 August 2016 with an added clause governing variation; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Freezing Order, Freezing Injunction, Variation of Order, Calderbank Correspondence, Undertakings
Civil Procedure Injunctions Company Law Insolvency Costs Freezing Order Freezing Injunction Variation of Order +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

QUEENSLAND MAINTENANCE SERVICES (NZ) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

First Plaintiff

GARETH RUSSEL HOOLE

Second Plaintiff

CLIVE ROBERT BISH

Second Plaintiff

ZULLO PROPERTY GROUP (NZ) LIMITED

First Defendant

ZULLO HOLDINGS (NZ) LIMITED

Second Defendant

BRIGHT HORIZONS NEW ZEALAND CHILDCARE LIMITED

Third Defendant

FRANK ZULLO

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings Freezing Order / Judgment on Freezing Order and Costs (on the Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 6 of form G38 should be included in the freezing order
  2. 2 Whether the defendants should be awarded costs
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' Calderbank offer was comparable to the relief granted

Ratio Decidendi

Exclude clause 6 of form G38 because the freezing order is limited to NZD 1,000,000, other assets exist to meet defendants' expenses, the property is not a trading asset and therefore ordinary course disposal is inapplicable; variation remains available. On costs, neither party should recover because both had a measure of success and the defendants' Calderbank offer was not sufficiently comparable to the order made.

Court Disposition

Freezing order granted in plaintiffs' form dated 5 August 2016 with an added clause governing variation; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Freezing order granted in form attached to plaintiffs' memorandum dated 5 August 2016, excluding form G38 clause 6 and limited to NZD 1,000,000 in value.
  • Additional clause 10 appended governing variation requests (10(a) plaintiffs to consider/negotiate in good faith and urgently if requested; 10(b) parties/counsel to make reasonable efforts to reach consent; 10(c) variation application may be made by memorandum if no consent; 10(d) Registry to treat variation as...