PETER WALSH & ASSOCIATES LIMITED v GUYAN FARMING LIMITED (IN LIQ) [2021] NZHC 3281 [2 December 2021]

PETER WALSH & ASSOCIATES LIMITED v GUYAN FARMING LIMITED (IN LIQ) [2021] NZHC 3281[2 December 2021]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDGREYMOUTH REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAMĀWHERA ROHECIV-2020-418-10[2021] NZHC 3281BETWEEN PETER WALSH & ASSOCIATESLIMITEDPlaintiffAND GUYAN FARMING LIMITED (IN LIQ)DefendantHearing: (Determined on the papers)Counsel: T C G Nation for PlaintiffJudgment: 2 December 2021JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER[1] Guyan Farming Limited (in liquidation) (Guyan) was placed in liquidation byorder of this Court on 7 December 2020. Geoff Brown and Lynda Smart wereappointed liquidators. The liquidation has now been completed and the liquidatorsseek approval of their fees.[2] The liquidators have filed a comprehensive memorandum setting out the workundertaken, the recoveries made, the distributions to creditors, and a breakdown oftheir fees. They have also provided copies of their reports.[3] Guyan was incorporated on 15 May 2019 and operated as a share milker ona dairy farm. It ceased trading a little over a year after incorporation.[4] The liquidators on appointment were faced with the need to undertakeinterviews with the directors and obtain company records. They ascertained therewere overdrawn directors' and shareholders' current accounts, but attempts to recoverthose overdrawn accounts came to naught when the directors and shareholders wereadjudicated bankrupt.[5] The liquidators' investigations disclosed assets owned by Guyan that had notbeen revealed to them by the directors, resulting in the liquidators recovering a tractorand an item of plant which were sold at auction to produce funds in the liquidation.[6] The liquidators from their recoveries paid $3,934.51 on account of thepetitioning creditor's court costs and made a distribution of $16,463.17 to the securedcreditor representing 27 cents in the dollar of the amount owed to the secured creditor.The liquidators' fees total $11,985.50 plus disbursements.[7] I am satisfied that the liquidators have run a "tight ship" in terms of theliquidation and but for their efforts there would have been no recovery forthe petitioning creditor's costs or the secured creditor. I am also satisfied that theliquidators' disbursements are reasonable.[8] Accordingly, the liquidators' fees and disbursements are approved.[9] The liquidators' statutory reporting has been comprehensive and the liquidatorshave provided detailed breakdowns of their remuneration in their reporting.[10] As noted by the liquidators in their memorandum Re Roslea Path Ltd (in liq)provides that where the liquidators' remuneration is described in their report sent tocreditors and where there is no objection by the time application of approval of fees ismade, the Court can properly approve the remuneration charge without the need fordetailed information.1 The rates of remuneration to be charged by the liquidators wereapproved at the time of liquidation.[11] Accordingly, as I have said, I consider it appropriate that the liquidators'remuneration be approved._____________________________Associate Judge LesterSolicitors:Timpany Walton Lawyers, TimaruCopy to:Rodgers Reidy (NZ) Limited, Christchurch1 Re Roslea Path Ltd (in liq) [2013] 1 NZLR 207 (HC) at [145]-[153] and [187].