21 Sept 2023
The plaintiffs were entitled to interlocutory costs because they achieved measurable success on the summary judgment application, the defendant's expert evidence did not assist and the defendant's 'walk away' offer did not mitigate costs; accordingly costs of $8,723.50 plus disbursements were awarded to the plaintiffs for the interlocutory application.
31 Aug 2023
On the proved facts the plaintiffs established that W&L directly or indirectly contributed to the purchase, improvement or maintenance of Nicks Way, the Robinson Avenue sections, Seddon Road, Radnor Street and contributed finance/guarantees to Victoria Street such that equity imposes constructive or resulting trusts in favour of W&L in respect of those assets; the presumption of resulting trust for the $50,000 paid toward 12 Knox Street was rebutted on the evidence (it was repayment of an earlier loan), so Jin has no proprietary interest in Knox Street; the sole director (Luo) breached statut…
29 Aug 2019
The Court declined to order the plaintiff to pay Mayajaal's costs because the defendants did not show it would be manifestly unjust for them to meet those costs; the ordinary rule that the applicant pays remains appropriate absent egregious conduct, so defendants must pay the non-party's costs and the plaintiff's application for further discovery was ordered on specified terms.
18 Jul 2018
The sole director, Aaron Carl Drever, failed to keep adequate accounting records, intermingled funds and caused substantial uncertainty and impediment to the winding up; accordingly, under s 300 the Court declared him personally liable for the company's debts, inclusive of net liquidator's costs, in the sum of $489,729.34.
29 Mar 2018
The Assignee lawfully rejected the liquidators' proof because the liquidators failed, on the balance of probabilities, to adduce sufficient evidence to establish either cash‑flow insolvency or breach of directors' duties during the relevant period; the onus remained with the claimants, the deed of waiver did not estop the Assignee, and absent adequate evidence the Court would not displace the Assignee's decision, so the appeal was dismissed.
15 Nov 2017
Defendant breached duties under ss 131, 135, 136 and 137 by prioritising Town Ball's and his own interests over FAF, failing to terminate or enforce contractual obligations, allowing Inland Revenue liabilities to accrue while FAF was insolvent and failing to make proper enquiries or act reasonably; related party claim was time-barred; appropriate remedy under s301 was contribution of $538,213.28 to company assets to compensate for Inland Revenue debt.
29 Apr 2016
The appeal is dismissed. The Court held Johnston did not breach duties from appointment or mid‑2010 because he had undertaken reasonable due diligence, injected funds and took remedial steps; he did breach s137 (duty of care) from about 31 December 2010 (and Brown J's findings of later breaches were largely accepted) but the court declined to order compensation under s301 because causation and primary culpability lay with Andrews, Johnston's substantial advances offset deterioration, and fairness and proportionality did not support a contribution order.
10 Sept 2009
The Court accepted the factual elements constituted a breach of s136 but, applying the s301 discretionary inquiry, concluded no contribution was just: the director acted honestly in constrained circumstances, purchased the asset at fair value, sought to compromise the GST debt, the company's insolvency (not record‑keeping) was the real cause of loss, and equitable compensation under s301 should be limited to actual loss — accordingly the appeal dismissing the liquidators' claim was upheld and no costs ordered despite the breach.