New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Asset realisation

Legal area

Court

29 May 2023

COMPASS HOMES LIMITED v COMPASS HOMES (AUCKLAND SOUTH) LIMITED (in liquidation) [2023] NZHC 1293

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1293
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied the proposed remuneration of $22,245.66 is fair and reasonable and appropriately reflects the value of services rendered to the creditors given the work performed, the modest scale of the liquidation, the breakdown of time and rates, and the absence of challenge; the application for approval of liquidators' fees is granted.
18 Aug 2022

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v ENTRA SCAFFOLDING LTD (in liq) [2022] NZHC 2056

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2056
Court

High Court

On the material provided—detailed time records, activity breakdowns, six-monthly reports disclosing fees, asset realisations and distributions, and a letter from the Commissioner supporting the fees—the Court is satisfied the proposed remuneration of $18,675 (excluding GST) plus disbursements appropriately reflects the value of services rendered to the creditors and grants approval.
7 Aug 2018

RE CBL CORPORATION LTD & ORS (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) [2018] NZHC 1998

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1998
Court

High Court

The Court granted the adjournment and convening period extension because, applying the Part 15A objectives and relevant statutory powers, the administrators demonstrated that the group's complexity, ongoing asset realisation, potential restructuring and pending CBLI-related proceedings justified a six-month adjournment to maximise prospects of a better return to creditors; there was no demonstrated prejudice and protection was provided by public advertisement and reservation of leave to apply to vary or set aside the orders.
29 Aug 2011

SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) v E SEREPISOS HC WN CIV-2011-485-279

Citation

openlaw-31132438_a788_433b_bebb_d66b68a61f32.pdf
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion to grant a limited adjournment to allow service and consideration of the Part 5 proposal because there was a plausible prospect that an orderly realisation could benefit creditors and key creditors supported the adjournment, but imposed strict conditions (service, creditors' meeting, review date) and safeguards to prevent prejudice to creditors and to monitor for substantial opposition.
9 Mar 2010

OTTOW HC AK CIV 2009-404-007851

Citation

openlaw-db115608_3679_4498_b465_ca2b83ba9568.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court approved the proposal because the trustees' report showed statutory notice and voting requirements under s333 were satisfied, the proposal is calculated to benefit the general body of creditors compared with the likely outcome of bankruptcy, proper provision had been made for preferential debts and costs as required by s333(4), and there were no objections or reasons to refuse approval.
27 Aug 2009

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V MK JOHNSTON HC WANG CIV-2008-483-151

Citation

openlaw-ffe14042_737f_4878_83bb_7a707f01a600.pdf
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to demonstrate that his asserted mental illness was a material fact that, if disclosed, would have prevented adjudication; verified asset valuations and the magnitude of the tax debt established insolvency; therefore s309(1)(a) not satisfied and annulment dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

COMPASS HOMES LIMITED v COMPASS HOMES (AUCKLAND SOUTH) LIMITED (in liquidation) [2023] NZHC 1293

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v ENTRA SCAFFOLDING LTD (in liq) [2022] NZHC 2056

RE CBL CORPORATION LTD & ORS (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) [2018] NZHC 1998

SOUTH CANTERBURY FINANCE LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) v E SEREPISOS HC WN CIV-2011-485-279

OTTOW HC AK CIV 2009-404-007851

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V MK JOHNSTON HC WANG CIV-2008-483-151