BLANCHETT v MOWBRAY [2013] NZHC 2797

BLANCHETT v MOWBRAY [2013] NZHC 2797

Respondents failed to establish s296(3)(c): repayment of antecedent debt did not constitute new value and there was no evidence they altered their position in reliance on the payments being valid; therefore the statutory defence does not apply and the liquidators are entitled to recover the set aside payments with interest.

Citation
[2013] NZHC 2797
Parties
Applicant (liquidator): David Murray Blanchett; Applicant (liquidator): Colin Thomas McCloy; Respondent: Stephen Hope Mowbray; Respondent: Parekura Smith Mowbray
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
24 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Companies Act 1993 Liquidation and Voidable Transactions / Application for Judgment on Set Aside Transactions (summary Application)
Outcome
Judgment for applicants (liquidators). Respondents liable to repay set aside payments.
Legal Topics
Voidable Transactions, Preferential Payments, Defence of Good Faith and Alteration of Position (s296(3)), Liquidator Recovery, Interest and Costs
Company Law Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Voidable Transactions Preferential Payments Defence of Good Faith and Alteration of Position (s296(3)) Liquidator Recovery Interest and Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Murray Blanchett

Applicant (liquidator)

Colin Thomas McCloy

Applicant (liquidator)

Stephen Hope Mowbray

Respondent

Parekura Smith Mowbray

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Companies Act 1993 Liquidation and Voidable Transactions / Application for Judgment on Set Aside Transactions (summary Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether respondents prove the s296(3) defence (good faith; no reasonable grounds to suspect insolvency; gave value or altered position)
  2. 2 Whether repayment of antecedent debt constitutes 'value'
  3. 3 Whether respondents altered their position in reliance on payments being valid

Ratio Decidendi

Respondents failed to establish s296(3)(c): repayment of antecedent debt did not constitute new value and there was no evidence they altered their position in reliance on the payments being valid; therefore the statutory defence does not apply and the liquidators are entitled to recover the set aside payments with interest.

Court Disposition

Judgment for applicants (liquidators). Respondents liable to repay set aside payments.

Orders

  • Judgment against respondents for $29,362
  • Interest on $29,362 at the Judicature Act rate from 14 March 2011 to date of judgment