MURPHY v CRISP [2017] NZHC 615

MURPHY v CRISP [2017] NZHC 615

Leave under s165 was granted only to permit Mr Murphy to bring a derivative claim in the name of Dawnhaven Ltd limited to the Disputes Tribunal for recovery of his one-third share of the c. $27,000 paid to Mr Crisp because the claim was arguable, the sum fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction thus minimizing cost and procedural barriers, the company would not pursue the claim due to Mr Crisp's control, and other larger or court-based claims and pre-commencement discovery were speculative and refused.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 615
Parties
Applicant: John Patrick Murphy; First Respondent: Colin Hamilton Crisp; Second Respondent: Dawnhaven Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave Under S165 Companies Act 1993 (derivative Proceedings) / Hearing and Oral Judgment on Leave Application
Outcome
Leave granted under s165 limited to a derivative claim in the name of Dawnhaven Ltd in the Disputes Tribunal for recovery of any overpayment to Mr Crisp not exceeding the Tribunal's jurisdiction; leave refused for pre-commencement discovery and for derivative proceedings in the District Court or High Court for...
Legal Topics
Derivative Proceedings, Pre Commencement Discovery, Disputes Tribunal Jurisdiction, Shareholder Remedies, Distribution of Company Funds, Costs Allocation
Company Law Civil Procedure Dispute Resolution Derivative Proceedings Pre Commencement Discovery Disputes Tribunal Jurisdiction Shareholder Remedies Distribution of Company Funds +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Patrick Murphy

Applicant

Colin Hamilton Crisp

First Respondent

Dawnhaven Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave Under S165 Companies Act 1993 (derivative Proceedings) / Hearing and Oral Judgment on Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave under s165 should be granted to bring derivative proceedings in the name of Dawnhaven Ltd
  2. 2 Whether leave should be granted to seek pre-commencement discovery in the company's name
  3. 3 Proper forum for the dispute (Disputes Tribunal v District Court v High Court)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave under s165 was granted only to permit Mr Murphy to bring a derivative claim in the name of Dawnhaven Ltd limited to the Disputes Tribunal for recovery of his one-third share of the c. $27,000 paid to Mr Crisp because the claim was arguable, the sum fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction thus minimizing cost and procedural barriers, the company would not pursue the claim due to Mr Crisp's control, and other larger or court-based claims and pre-commencement discovery were speculative and refused.

Court Disposition

Leave granted under s165 limited to a derivative claim in the name of Dawnhaven Ltd in the Disputes Tribunal for recovery of any overpayment to Mr Crisp not exceeding the Tribunal's jurisdiction; leave refused for pre-commencement discovery and for derivative proceedings in the District Court or High Court for...

Orders

  • Leave granted to bring a derivative claim in the name of Dawnhaven Ltd in the Disputes Tribunal for any overpayment to Mr Crisp not exceeding the Disputes Tribunal jurisdiction under s10 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988
  • Leave refused to bring derivative proceedings in the District Court or High Court in respect of the Digitech proceedings or for larger sums