MADSEN-RIES AND VANCE v PETERA [2015] NZHC 2418

MADSEN-RIES AND VANCE v PETERA [2015] NZHC 2418

The Court recalled and amended its earlier judgment under s87 Judicature Act 1908 to include interest at the prescribed rate on sums awarded, payable from the date Petranz Ltd entered liquidation; the plaintiffs were awarded costs and disbursements on a Category 2B basis for steps in both the High Court and District...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 2418
Parties
First Plaintiff: Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries and David Stuart Vance as liquidators of Petranz Limited (in liquidation); Second Plaintiff: Petranz Limited (in liquidation); First Defendant: Darrell Warren Karaneiihana Petera; Second Defendant: Diana Joy Petera
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
5 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Companies Act 1993 Proceedings (liquidation) / Recall of Judgment and Costs Determination
Outcome
Application to recall judgment granted in part; judgment recalled and amended to include interest; plaintiffs awarded costs on Category 2B basis for High Court and District Court steps; application for increased costs (50% uplift) refused.
Legal Topics
Recall of Judgment, Interest on Judgment, Director Duties, Reliance on Professional Advice (s300(2)(b)), Discovery Obligations, Costs Uplift Principles
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Costs Law Recall of Judgment Interest on Judgment Director Duties Reliance on Professional Advice (s300(2)(b)) +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vivien Judith Madsen-Ries and David Stuart Vance as liquidators of Petranz Limited (in liquidation)

First Plaintiff

Petranz Limited (in liquidation)

Second Plaintiff

Darrell Warren Karaneiihana Petera

First Defendant

Diana Joy Petera

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Companies Act 1993 Proceedings (liquidation) / Recall of Judgment and Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should recall its earlier judgment to include interest inadvertently omitted
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs are entitled to costs and whether those costs should be uplifted for defendants' conduct
  3. 3 Whether defendants' procedural defaults and conduct justify increased costs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court recalled and amended its earlier judgment under s87 Judicature Act 1908 to include interest at the prescribed rate on sums awarded, payable from the date Petranz Ltd entered liquidation; the plaintiffs were awarded costs and disbursements on a Category 2B basis for steps in both the High Court and District Court (totaling the quoted schedule), and the plaintiffs' application for a 50% uplift was refused as the defendants' breaches and conduct did not justify increased costs.

Court Disposition

Application to recall judgment granted in part; judgment recalled and amended to include interest; plaintiffs awarded costs on Category 2B basis for High Court and District Court steps; application for increased costs (50% uplift) refused.

Orders

  • Judgment recalled and amended to include interest at the prescribed rate on the sums in respect of which judgment has been entered against the defendants, interest to be payable from the date upon which Petranz Ltd went into liquidation.
  • Defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs and disbursements calculated on a Category 2B basis for steps taken in both the High Court and the District Court (costs as calculated in plaintiffs' schedule).