UNITED BUILDERS LTD v MKOD DEVELOPMENTS LTD [2022] NZHC 3282

UNITED BUILDERS LTD v MKOD DEVELOPMENTS LTD [2022] NZHC 3282

Because only the presumption from an unsatisfied statutory demand existed and there was no firm evidence that MKOD's assets were being dissipated or at imminent risk — and the director's prior unrelated conviction did not meet the required threshold — it was not necessary or expedient to appoint an interim liquidator without notice; the application was therefore declined and the plaintiffs must serve and advertise their liquidation proceedings in the usual way.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 3282
Parties
First Plaintiff: United Builders Limited; Second Plaintiff: Wolfgramm Contracting Limited; Defendant: MKOD Developments Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
8 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Appointment of Interim Liquidator / Interim Application Decided on the Papers (without Notice)
Outcome
Application for appointment of an interim liquidator declined
Legal Topics
Interim Liquidator Appointment, Statutory Demand, Presumption of Insolvency, Without‑notice Applications, Asset Preservation
Insolvency Company Law Civil Procedure Interim Liquidator Appointment Statutory Demand Presumption of Insolvency Without‑notice Applications Asset Preservation

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United Builders Limited

First Plaintiff

Wolfgramm Contracting Limited

Second Plaintiff

MKOD Developments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Appointment of Interim Liquidator / Interim Application Decided on the Papers (without Notice)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim liquidator should be appointed without notice
  2. 2 Whether an unsatisfied statutory demand establishes a presumption that the company cannot pay its debts
  3. 3 Whether there is clear evidence that the company's assets are being dissipated or are at imminent risk

Ratio Decidendi

Because only the presumption from an unsatisfied statutory demand existed and there was no firm evidence that MKOD's assets were being dissipated or at imminent risk — and the director's prior unrelated conviction did not meet the required threshold — it was not necessary or expedient to appoint an interim liquidator without notice; the application was therefore declined and the plaintiffs must serve and advertise their liquidation proceedings in the usual way.

Court Disposition

Application for appointment of an interim liquidator declined

Orders

  • Application declined
  • Applicants must serve their liquidation proceedings on MKOD Developments and advertise them in the usual way