UNITED BUILDERS LIMITED v MKOD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2381

UNITED BUILDERS LIMITED v MKOD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2381

Appointment of an interim liquidator was declined because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood that liquidation would succeed or that MKOD is unable to pay its debts; factual disputes about contracts and lack of information about MKOD's assets meant necessity or expediency under s246 was not established, and alleged urgency factors were insufficient to justify without‑notice appointment.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 2381
Parties
First Plaintiff: UNITED BUILDERS LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: WOLFGRAMM CONTRACTING LIMITED; Defendant: MKOD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Application Under Companies Act 1993 for Liquidation / Application for Appointment of Interim Liquidator (without Notice)
Outcome
Application without notice to appoint an interim liquidator dismissed.
Legal Topics
Interim Liquidator, Liquidation, Just and Equitable Winding Up, Statutory Demand, Asset Preservation Under S246
Companies Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Interim Liquidator Liquidation Just and Equitable Winding Up Statutory Demand Asset Preservation Under S246

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UNITED BUILDERS LIMITED

First Plaintiff

WOLFGRAMM CONTRACTING LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

MKOD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under Companies Act 1993 for Liquidation / Application for Appointment of Interim Liquidator (without Notice)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim liquidator should be appointed under s246 Companies Act 1993
  2. 2 Whether MKOD is unable to pay its debts (insolvent)
  3. 3 Whether just and equitable grounds exist for winding up MKOD

Ratio Decidendi

Appointment of an interim liquidator was declined because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood that liquidation would succeed or that MKOD is unable to pay its debts; factual disputes about contracts and lack of information about MKOD's assets meant necessity or expediency under s246 was not established, and alleged urgency factors were insufficient to justify without‑notice appointment.

Court Disposition

Application without notice to appoint an interim liquidator dismissed.

Orders

  • Application dismissed. Plaintiffs must serve their notice of proceeding and statement of claim for an order putting the defendant company into liquidation on the defendant in the usual way.