STEPHANIE BETH JEFFREYS & ANOR v WARREN GRAHAM COOGAN & ANOR [2018] NZHC 778

STEPHANIE BETH JEFFREYS & ANOR v WARREN GRAHAM COOGAN & ANOR [2018] NZHC 778

The first defendant had no real defence because contemporaneous accounting records and his own statutory declaration and deed of settlement established the $506,046.17 current account overpayment; his contrary assertions were equivocal and contradicted by documents, so summary judgment was entered for the plaintiffs for principal, interest and costs.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 778
Parties
Plaintiff: Stephanie Beth Jeffreys; Plaintiff: Timothy Wilson Downes; First Defendant: Warren Graham Coogan; Second Defendant: Colin David Tuke
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
23 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Company Law Director Advances and Insolvency / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment entered against the first defendant
Legal Topics
Directors' Duties, Section 52 Companies Act 1993, Solvency Test, Summary Judgment, Recovery of Director Overpayments
Company Law Insolvency Civil Procedure Directors' Duties Section 52 Companies Act 1993 Solvency Test Summary Judgment Recovery of Director Overpayments

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephanie Beth Jeffreys

Plaintiff

Timothy Wilson Downes

Plaintiff

Warren Graham Coogan

First Defendant

Colin David Tuke

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Company Law Director Advances and Insolvency / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first defendant received advances from the company in breach of s 52 Companies Act 1993
  2. 2 Whether Gecko Construction Limited was insolvent when advances were made
  3. 3 Whether the first defendant has a real defence to the plaintiffs' claim such that summary judgment should be refused

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant had no real defence because contemporaneous accounting records and his own statutory declaration and deed of settlement established the $506,046.17 current account overpayment; his contrary assertions were equivocal and contradicted by documents, so summary judgment was entered for the plaintiffs for principal, interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered against the first defendant

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the first defendant in the sum of $506,046.17
  • Interest of $73,687.16 calculated at 5% per annum from 27 May 2015 to 23 April 2018 (69.32 per day)