New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appointment of interim liquidator

Legal area

Court

24 May 2021

WALMSLEY v HOOLE as Receiver of Online Education Ltd (in receivership) [2021] NZHC 1167

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1167
Court

High Court

There was no sufficient evidence to show a serious question to be tried on the validity of the GSA; the balance of convenience favoured the receiver because the company was insolvent, trading would cease if the injunction continued and employees and realisation value were at risk; damages were an adequate remedy; consequently the interim injunction lapsed and appointment of an interim liquidator was declined as unnecessary and costly.
2 Sept 2016

SCOTT & OTHERS, AS TRUSTEES OF THE BOARD OF PACIFIC TRUST CANTERBURY v PACIFIC TRUST CANTERBURY [2016] NZHC 2076

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2076
Court

High Court

Given the Trust's demonstrated imminent insolvency, cash shortfall and risk to realisable and confidential client assets, the Court was satisfied under s246 (as applied by s25(4) of the Charitable Trusts Act) that it was necessary or expedient to appoint interim liquidators immediately; the proposed liquidators were not disqualified despite firm connections to creditors and were suitably experienced to act.
18 Oct 2013

RAPH ENGLE CONCEPTS LIMITED v SCL INDUSTRIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP [2013] NZHC 2732

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2732
Court

High Court

On the material before the Court there was a good probability the liquidation application would succeed, there were serious prima facie doubts about the validity of related‑party securities and receivers' appointments and the receivers' conduct created a real risk to the status quo and creditor interests; accordingly it was expedient under s246 Companies Act 1993 (as applied to limited partnerships) to appoint interim liquidators to preserve assets and investigate the securities and affairs of the limited partnership.
11 May 2012

TRUCK AND TRAILER HOLDINGS LIMITED V SKELLY HOLDINGS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-000541

Citation

openlaw-1aedfd8b_8f63_4a75_beb2_e0ba9b4a8c7b.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the company's insolvency, the director's absence, seizure of primary records by police, substantial potential removal liabilities, inability to operate, and the risk to assets and creditors, the Court was satisfied under s 246 that appointment of an interim liquidator was necessary and expedient to preserve assets and protect creditors; accordingly Murray George Allott was appointed as interim liquidator.
16 Apr 2008

HALLIDAY V HEAVY DIESEL SPECIALISTS LIMITED HC WN CIV 2008-485-776

Citation

openlaw-6875f75c_6f93_4c46_9d7c_3ca0ae8e0722.pdf
Court

High Court

On the material before the Court there was a prima facie case for liquidation, demonstrable urgency and special circumstances because the company's assets were being moved and at risk of export, and an undertaking as to damages was filed; accordingly appointment of interim liquidators under s246 was necessary and expedient to preserve assets for creditors.

New Zealand Case Law

WALMSLEY v HOOLE as Receiver of Online Education Ltd (in receivership) [2021] NZHC 1167

SCOTT & OTHERS, AS TRUSTEES OF THE BOARD OF PACIFIC TRUST CANTERBURY v PACIFIC TRUST CANTERBURY [2016] NZHC 2076

RAPH ENGLE CONCEPTS LIMITED v SCL INDUSTRIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP [2013] NZHC 2732

TRUCK AND TRAILER HOLDINGS LIMITED V SKELLY HOLDINGS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-000541

HALLIDAY V HEAVY DIESEL SPECIALISTS LIMITED HC WN CIV 2008-485-776