PROGRESSIVE CONCEPTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V PROPERTY AND MAINTENANCE MANAGERS LIMITED HC TAU CIV-2010-470-92
The defendant failed to demonstrate any proper grounds for a stay or to restrain advertising; a mere intention to propose a compromise with creditors, unsubstantiated and speculative, does not justify interrupting the liquidation process, therefore the application for a stay and for restraint of advertising is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- openlaw-77e90d25_85a0_4386_81c9_85473b9ff888.pdf
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Progressive Concepts Limited (in liquidation); Defendant: Property and Maintenance Managers Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 19 March 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Liquidation (winding Up) Proceedings / Application for Stay of Winding Up and to Restrain Advertising (urgent Telephone Conference)
- Outcome
- Application to stay winding up and to restrain advertising declined; costs awarded to plaintiff on a 2B basis.
- Legal Topics
- Stay of Liquidation, Restraining Advertisement of Liquidation, Compromise With Creditors, Costs
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Progressive Concepts Limited (in liquidation)
Plaintiff
Property and Maintenance Managers Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Liquidation (winding Up) Proceedings / Application for Stay of Winding Up and to Restrain Advertising (urgent Telephone Conference)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether to grant a stay of winding up proceedings
- 2 Whether to restrain advertisement of liquidation
- 3 Whether a proposed compromise with creditors justifies a stay
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant failed to demonstrate any proper grounds for a stay or to restrain advertising; a mere intention to propose a compromise with creditors, unsubstantiated and speculative, does not justify interrupting the liquidation process, therefore the application for a stay and for restraint of advertising is declined and costs are awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B basis.
Court Disposition
Application to stay winding up and to restrain advertising declined; costs awarded to plaintiff on a 2B basis.
Orders
- Application to stay liquidation proceedings dismissed
- No order restraining advertisement of the liquidation
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
PROGRESSIVE CONCEPTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V PROPERTY AND MAINTENANCE MANAGERS LIMITED HC TAU CIV-2010-470-92 19 March 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY CIV-2010-470-92BETWEEN PROGRESSIVE CONCEPTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Plaintiff AND PROPERTY AND MAINTENANCE MANAGERS LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 19 March 2010 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Mr Grove for plaintiff No appearance for defendant Judgment: 19 March 2010ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUECounsel:Graeme Skeates Lawyers, Auckland – Graeme@skeateslaw.co.nz C T Patterson, P O Box 2886, Auckland – chris.patterson@waterloochambers.net Copy: Ms White[1] I arranged an urgent telephone conference to hear the defendant's application to stay winding up proceedings for 2.45 pm by telephone today 19 March 2010. The Registrar at Tauranga advises me that Ms White was informed of the time of the telephone conference. But the Telecom operator advises me that despite trying her landline and cell phone line for over 10 minutes she has not been able to get through to Ms White. Mr Grove for the plaintiff has been waiting to be linked in. [2] The Telecom operator advises me that she left messages for Ms White to call but has not heard back. I have therefore determined that we can wait no longer and that the matter will proceed. I have read the papers that Ms White filed in support of her application for a stay and I have determined that there is no substance to her claim. [3] I understand that the grounds upon which the defendant seeks an order restraining advertisement is that she has in mind coming to some sort of compromise with creditors generally which would result in a more beneficial outcome for the creditors than if a liquidation proceeded. The application was not based upon any typical grounds such as that the company is not indebted to the plaintiff or that the company is solvent. [4] In my view there is no proper ground to stay the liquidation process and in particular to direct a stay of advertising. The application is declined. [5] I direct that the plaintiff is to have costs on a 2B basis relating to this conference. _____________ J.P. Doogue Associate Judge