HAYES v THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2013] NZHC 1236
Restoration was ordered because the statutory prerequisites were satisfied: the company was in liquidation when removed and the applicant was the liquidator; restoration was necessary and appropriate to enable the liquidator to pursue creditor claims and asset recovery, and interested parties did not oppose the relief.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- HAYES v THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2013] NZHC 1236
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nicholas John Hayes; Defendant: The Registrar of Companies
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 28 May 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Application Under Companies Act 1993 S329 to Restore Struck Off Company to the Register / Judgment on Application (oral)
- Outcome
- Application granted; company restored to the register; plaintiff confirmed as liquidator; specified document removed from register.
- Legal Topics
- Restoration to Register, Liquidation, Preferential Claims, Asset Recovery
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Nicholas John Hayes
Plaintiff
The Registrar of Companies
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Application Under Companies Act 1993 S329 to Restore Struck Off Company to the Register / Judgment on Application (oral)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court may restore a company removed from the register where it was in liquidation at the time of removal
- 2 Whether the former liquidator has standing to apply under s329(2)(a)(v)
- 3 Whether restoration is appropriate to enable the liquidator to pursue preferential claim notifications and recover assets transferred by shareholders or directors
Ratio Decidendi
Restoration was ordered because the statutory prerequisites were satisfied: the company was in liquidation when removed and the applicant was the liquidator; restoration was necessary and appropriate to enable the liquidator to pursue creditor claims and asset recovery, and interested parties did not oppose the relief.
Court Disposition
Application granted; company restored to the register; plaintiff confirmed as liquidator; specified document removed from register.
Orders
- SmartCare Services Group Ltd is restored to the register of companies.
- The plaintiff is confirmed as liquidator.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HAYES v THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2013] NZHC 1236 [28 May 2013]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDHAMILTON REGISTRYCIV-2012-419-1743[2013] NZHC 1236IN THE MATTER of an application under Part 18 of the HighCourt RulesIN THE MATTER of SmartCare Services Group Limited(struck off)IN THE MATTER of the Companies Act 1993 section 329being an application to restore thecompany to the New Zealand registerBETWEEN NICHOLAS JOHN HAYES liquidator ofHamilton as former liquidator ofSmartCare Services Group Limited(Struck off)PlaintiffAND THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIESDefendantHearing: 28 May 2013Counsel: DG Hayes for plaintiffNo appearance for defendantJudgment: 28 May 2013(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE FAIRE[on application to restore company to the register of companies][1] Application is made by the former liquidator of Smartcare Services Group Ltd to restore that company to the register of companies. The application is made in reliance on s 329 of the Companies Act 1993. Particular reliance is placed on s 329(1)(a)(iii) and (2)(a)(v).[2] Section 329(1)(a)(iii) provides:329 Court may restore company to New Zealand register(1) The Court may, on the application of a person referred to in subsection (2)of this section, order that a company that has been removed from the New Zealand register be restored to the register if it is satisfied that,—(a) At the time the company was removed from the register,—(iii) The company was in receivership, or liquidation, or both;[3] Section 329(2)(a)(v) provides:(2) The following persons may make an application under subsection (1) of this section:(a) Any person who, at the time the company was removed from the New Zealand register,—(v) Was the liquidator, or a receiver of the property of, the company:[4] The application is made so that the former liquidator can take appropriate action arising from a notification from the Commissioner of Inland Revenue concerning a default and a claim for a preferential claim and to enable the former liquidator to consider taking remedial action to recover funds transferred either bythe shareholders or directors out of the company's assets.[5] As a result of the filing of this proceeding and directions for service that I have given, the following have signalled their respective positions in relation to this proceeding. The Secretary for Treasury and a creditor, ACC, have recorded their non-opposition to the relief sought in the amended statement of claim. The majorcreditor, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, advises that the Commissioner will abide the decision of the court, as does the Registrar of Companies.[6] The shareholders and directors have been served with the proceeding, but have taken no steps.[7] I am satisfied that the relief sought in the amended statement of claim is appropriate and will enable the former liquidator to advance a claim in the areas mentioned in this judgment and more particularly set out in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the amended statement of claim.[8] Accordingly, I order:a) SmartCare Services Group Ltd is restored to the register of companies;b) The plaintiff is confirmed as liquidator;c) The document recorded as the final report of the liquidator dated 23 August 2012 shall be removed from the documents contained in the register of companies.____________________JA FaireAssociate Judge