REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES V NEW ZEALAND CONSULTANCY GROUP LTD HC AK CIV-2010-404-2380

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES V NEW ZEALAND CONSULTANCY GROUP LTD HC AK CIV-2010-404- 2380 4 June 2010IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2010-404-2380UNDER the Companies Act BETWEEN REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES Plaintiff AND NEW ZEALAND CONSULTANCY GROUP LTD Defendant Hearing: 4 June 2010 Appearances: Mr Malloy for plaintiff Mr Bradley (a director) in person Judgment: 4 June 2010ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE [Application to adjourn]Solicitors:Meredith Connell Solicitors, P O Box 2213, AucklandCopy:Mr Bradley.[1] The Registrar has applied for an order placing the defendant in liquidation on the just and equitable ground. The Registrar alleges in the statement of claim, that the company has been soliciting and accepting funds for investment but there have been irregularities in the way in which those funds have been dealt with. The Registrar claims there is a need to protect members of the public from the defendant company and that there is a strong public interest in preventing the company and Mr Bradley from receiving money from other potential investors. [2] When the matter was called before me today Mr Malloy appeared for the plaintiff. The company was not legally represented but a Mr Bradley, sought to address me. Mr Bradley sought an adjournment of the case and said that he needed to speak to other shareholders of the company and he said that as a result of that meeting he would expect that money will be put in place to satisfy the concerns of the Companies Office. [3] If that could not be done by 18 June then he would "consent" to the company being put in liquidation. He said the plaintiff was being unreasonable in expecting to go ahead today. [4] The proceeding in this case was filed on 21 April 2010. In the usual way it contains an affidavit verifying the allegations in the statement of claim. Therefore the Court may take it that the claims made by the Registrar have been verified on oath. No steps have been taken to file a defence. Mr Bradley says that is because the company cannot afford a lawyer. Further, a letter which Mr Bradley has given to me today implicitly recognises that funds need to be obtained in order to redress the alleged irregularities in the statement of claim. [5] In my view this case, like any liquidation case, needs to be dealt with promptly and the approach taken is that if unopposed they are dealt with at their first calling and orders are made. In some cases, where there are good reasons for so doing, the Court will adjourn the applications. There are no such reasons here. In this case there is the added public interest concern which has been established by the fact that the plaintiff has filed affidavits verifying the substance of its concerns andthose concerns, it seems to me, are real ones. It would not be appropriate or in the public interest for the proceeding to be adjourned. Paying the money back is only part of the issue. The real problem is, according to the statement of claim, that it was misapplied in the first place. I decline to adjourn the matter and the plaintiff will be entitled to proceed today. _____________ J.P. Doogue Associate Judge