New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appointment of administrators

Legal area

Court

1 Oct 2020

ENDEAN v ENDEAN [2020] NZHC 2575

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2575
Court

High Court

Expert geriatric psychiatric evidence and contemporaneous medical and solicitors' records established progressive cognitive decline and deficits in understanding, retention and appreciation of testamentary matters such that the presumption of capacity was displaced; applicants failed to establish requisite Banks v Goodfellow elements were met on 1 August 2018, therefore the 2018 will was invalid for lack of testamentary capacity and the 1994 will governs administration.
15 Jul 2020

SLOOTS v SLOOTS [2020] NZHC 1696

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1696
Court

High Court

The slip rule (r 11.10) was inapt because the parties themselves had consented in the terms that produced the judgment; however justice required recall under r 11.9 because the joint naming of corporate entities using the trading style 'Perpetual Guardian' created a real risk of procedural and administrative problems for estate administration so the judgment was recalled and reissued with the correct named appointee effective from the original date.
17 Oct 2019

Drikolor New Zealand Limited [Originating application Without Notice] [2019] NZHC [2650]

Citation

Drikolor New Zealand Limited [Originating application Without Notice] [2019] NZHC [2650]
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave under s286(4) because there was no actual conflict: the applicants had not acted for Drikolor and prior services to ASB were unrelated to Drikolor, the urgency of Drikolor's position justified a without‑notice order, and creditors' interests were adequately protected by procedural directions including notice, leave to apply to set aside, and treating the applicants' costs as an administration expense.
29 May 2019

Re an application re Fiber Fresh Feeds Limited (In Receivership) [2019] NZHC 1237

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1237
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave under s 280 because the applicants, despite a continuing business relationship with Rabobank, had not acted for the Company or advised Rabobank about the Company or its security, demonstrated competence and relevant sector experience, and adequate protections existed (urgent without‑notice relief justified, mandatory watershed meeting, reserved leave to creditors and specified notification arrangements) to mitigate any risk to independence; accordingly it was appropriate to permit their appointment as administrators and to cover potential subsequent appointment as liqu…
9 May 2016

Re: Application by Bridgman & Bennett [2016] NZHC 933

Citation

[2016] NZHC 933
Court

High Court

Leave was granted because the applicants' recent involvement was limited to a high‑level review, they are experienced insolvency practitioners subject to professional conduct obligations, the company and a major secured creditor (the Bank) supported the appointment, the applicants' firm relationships did not create a real risk to independence or prejudice creditors on the evidence, and creditors retain the ability to revisit and remove the appointees, thus ss280/239F/239ACD did not bar appointment in the circumstances.
20 Oct 2015

HOLMES & ANOR v HOLMES [2015] NZHC 2576

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2576
Court

High Court

Respondent was manifestly mentally incapable of performing the duties of administrator; removal under s 21 was therefore expedient and in the best interests of the estate and beneficiaries, and the appointment of Murray Brian Holmes and Deborah Faith Buchanan as administrators was appropriate given their connection, qualifications and the practical need for two administrators.
28 Mar 2008

JENNIAN SERVICES LTD V JENNIAN HOMES NORTH SHORE LTD HC AK CIV 2008-404-1495

Citation

openlaw-2a6a74e5_8fa4_4bfe_a8f0_618b111689e8.pdf
Court

High Court

Applicant was a creditor; respondent was insolvent and without management; proper service and consent of proposed administrators were filed; evidence showed administration would likely produce a better return for creditors and shareholders than immediate liquidation (including potential sale of the business), therefore the Court exercised its power under s239L to appoint the proposed administrators and awarded costs to the applicant.

New Zealand Case Law

ENDEAN v ENDEAN [2020] NZHC 2575

SLOOTS v SLOOTS [2020] NZHC 1696

Drikolor New Zealand Limited [Originating application Without Notice] [2019] NZHC [2650]

Re an application re Fiber Fresh Feeds Limited (In Receivership) [2019] NZHC 1237

Re: Application by Bridgman & Bennett [2016] NZHC 933

HOLMES & ANOR v HOLMES [2015] NZHC 2576

JENNIAN SERVICES LTD V JENNIAN HOMES NORTH SHORE LTD HC AK CIV 2008-404-1495