ALLEN V THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES HC AK CIV 2006-404-4750

ALLEN V THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES HC AK CIV 2006-404-4750 11 August 2006IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV 2006-404-4750IN THE MATTER OF the Companies Act 1993 AND IN THE MATTER OF an application to restore TECHNOLOGY JUNCTION LIMITED to the Register of Companies BETWEEN NEIL ALLEN Applicant AND THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES Respondent Hearing: On the papers Counsel: D R I Gay for Applicant Judgment: 11 August 2006 at 2:30pmJUDGMENT OF ANDREWS J [on application for interim injunction]This judgment was delivered by me on [ 11 August 2006 ] at [ 2:30 pm ], pursuant to Rule 540(4) of the High Court Rules. _______________________________________ Registrar / Deputy Registrar Date: Solicitor: Wadsworth Ray, PO Box 26301, Epsom, Auckland Counsel: D R I Gay, PO Box 717, Shortland Street, Auckland[1] The applicant is director and a shareholder of Technology Junction Limited ("the Company"), which is a party in proceedings set down for hearing for two weeks, commencing 14 August 2006. The Company is first defendant and counter- claimant in proceeding CIV2005-404-789 and second plaintiff in proceeding CIV2005-404-1475. [2] On 18 July 2006 the Company was removed from the Register following its failure to file an annual return in March 2006. The Company appears to have been unaware of the removal until it was brought to its attention by counsel for another party in the proceeding, on 7 August 2006. [3] The applicant deposes that on 8 August 2006 he lodged with the Registrar of Companies an application for registration and the annual return, and paid the appropriate filing fees and penalties. However, there is insufficient time for the application to be dealt with in the normal course by the Registrar prior to the commencement of the hearing next Monday. Hence the application to this Court. [4] The application has been served on the Registrar of Companies, the Attorney General and (at my direction) Cabletalk Limited (the plaintiff in proceeding 789). I record that the reason for this direction was that Cabletalk, as the plaintiff in proceedings where the Company is a defendant, appears to be a person with an interest in the application. Each has indicated its consent (or non-opposition) to the application. [5] A procedural matter has been raised. It is noted that the company's application has been by way of an ex parte originating application (albeit served on a Pickwick basis) in reliance on r 458D(1)(e) of the High Court Rules and Re. Durweston Properties Ltd (1992 6 PRNZ 95. It was submitted by counsel for the applicant that leave was not required to apply under r 458D(1)(e). [6] With respect to counsel's submission, the word "permits" in the Rule makes it clear that leave is, in fact required. That said, it is accepted that there was no anticipation, at the time of filing, that the application would be opposed, and thatsituation has not changed. Accordingly, leave is granted for the application to be filed on an originating application. [7] Accordingly there will be an order that Technology Junction Limited be restored to the Register. Sealed copies of this order are to be served on the Registrar of Companies, the Attorney General and Cabletalk Limited. _____________________________ Andrews J