ACTION MEDIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v LEVIN AND MADSEN-RIES AS LIQUIDATORS OF ACTION MEDIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2016] NZHC 30

ACTION MEDIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v LEVIN AND MADSEN-RIES AS LIQUIDATORS OF ACTION MEDIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2016] NZHC 30

The application to recall the judgment was dismissed because the issues complained of were addressed in the reasons for judgment, the discovery order resulted from the form and argument of the interlocutory application and not from a substantive error, and the court had considered and declined to make the s 286 orders; an omission from the results paragraph did not alter the outcome.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 30
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 Liquidation / Clarification/recall Application on the Papers
Outcome
Judgment will not be recalled
Legal Topics
Liquidator Powers, Discovery From Tax Authority, Section 286 Companies Act 1993, Recall of Judgment, Slip Rule
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Evidence and Discovery Liquidator Powers Discovery From Tax Authority Section 286 Companies Act 1993 Recall of Judgment +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 2 Party arguments 2
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 Liquidation / Clarification/recall Application on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the earlier judgment should be recalled or clarified
  2. 2 Whether the order for discovery from Inland Revenue exceeded the relief sought
  3. 3 Whether orders under s 286 Companies Act 1993 should be made

Ratio Decidendi

The application to recall the judgment was dismissed because the issues complained of were addressed in the reasons for judgment, the discovery order resulted from the form and argument of the interlocutory application and not from a substantive error, and the court had considered and declined to make the s 286 orders; an omission from the results paragraph did not alter the outcome.

Court Disposition

Judgment will not be recalled

Orders

  • Judgment will not be recalled
  • The order requiring the liquidators to obtain further discovery from Inland Revenue remains as made