New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Assignment of debts

Legal area

Court

7 Aug 2020

100 INVESTMENTS LIMITED v WALKER [2020] NZHC 1947

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1947
Court

High Court

Applicants were prima facie creditors by assignment on the documentary evidence but they failed to satisfy the statutory tests: they did not establish the requisite 'good reason' for inspection under s256 and an audit under s284 is premature while the liquidation remains ongoing and no final report or full account of recoveries and distributions has been presented; accordingly the substantive applications are dismissed.
19 Dec 2018

SHARROCK v KIPPING [2018] NZHC 3421

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3421
Court

High Court

The Court found the creditor had established the act of bankruptcy and the debts were final; the debtor's allegations of dishonesty were bare, unsworn or belated and lacked corroboration so could not overturn final judgments; the debtor failed to demonstrate lack of assets or inability to pay with reliable evidence; no sufficient reason or just and equitable grounds under s37 to refuse adjudication and no basis to halt under s38; accordingly adjudication was ordered and costs awarded to the creditor on a 2B basis.
26 Aug 2016

MURRAY ATHOL OSMOND AND JANET DOREEN OSMOND v DAVID MURRAY BLANCHETT AND COLIN THOMAS MCCLOY AS LIQUIDATORS OF ARAI KORP LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2016] NZSC 112

Citation

[2016] NZSC 112
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the factual findings that the assignment was back‑dated/fabricated and that Arai Korp was insolvent were open on the evidence, the asserted trust interest lacked credible documentary foundation, the summary judgment was properly ordered, and the appeal raised no matter of public or general importance nor a miscarriage of justice.
18 Dec 2014

COMMERCIAL FACTORS LTD v WAVE TRANSPORT LTD [2014] NZHC 3325

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3325
Court

High Court

Clauses 2.1 and 7.5 read together effect an absolute assignment of the debts to the plaintiff on their creation and any repurchase/reclassification under clause 7.5 is expressed to operate pursuant to clause 2.1; therefore repurchase of a Category A debt does not remove it from the security evidenced by the registered financing statement and the Registrar's change demand must be resisted.
21 Dec 2012

GIBBSTON DOWNS WINES LIMITED V PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION) HC CHCH CIV-2012-409-001311

Citation

openlaw-d97ad0ec_d3bf_4d24_8327_4caf379b34a3.pdf
Court

High Court

The liquidator had authority to cause the company to issue the statutory demand; Gibbston failed to establish a substantial dispute on the evidence (asserted assignment and alleged offset were not supported by records); allegations of misconduct were insufficient to set aside the demand; the application to set aside was dismissed and Gibbston was ordered to pay the debt by a specified date or face liquidation application by the respondent.
2 Feb 2012

BRICKWORKS BUILDING PRODUCTS (NZ) PTY LIMITED V COMMERCIAL FACTORS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-2249

Citation

openlaw-10a32268_a02b_4eea_b4ee_33b0408ff396.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found CFL had not proven a valid statutory assignment to which Brickworks had actual written notice before the yard agreement; accordingly CFL could not rely unchallenged on creditor status and the statutory demand was vulnerable. Brickworks established genuine, substantial disputes over approximately $20,014.60 of the claimed $40,234.66 and had arguable equitable set-offs (rent/outgoings and immediate losses from repudiation) arising from the same contract. On that basis and having exercised its discretion as to just and equitable grounds, the Court set aside the statutory demand a…
4 Mar 2009

TOTARA INVESTMENTS LIMITED V ABOOTH LIMITED & ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-000990

Citation

openlaw-66f618d0_ff0e_48da_869d_2ebe330586b7.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found that, on the limited but credible surrounding evidence (nominal capital, disposal of known assets, dependence on borrowing, links to scheme promoters and lack of contrary evidence), there was reason to believe Totara may be unable to pay costs; balancing interests and considering the merits and complexity the Court exercised its discretion to order security for costs (quantum NZ$75,000 for five Lowndes Jordan defendants) and reclassified the proceeding as category 3 for costs.
19 Nov 2007

SANSON V PARVAL MARKETING LTD & ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-7231

Citation

openlaw-b413c420_42fa_43a7_9d96_8b65886efe81.pdf
Court

High Court

Amendment to plead maintenance and champerty was declined because allowing it at that late stage would unfairly prejudice the plaintiff by ambushing witnesses; independently, the proposed defence had no real prospect of success because an absolute assignment given and notified under s130 Property Law Act is effectual and not impeachable on maintenance/champerty grounds in the circumstances of this case.
29 Nov 2006

IBA LIMITED V STANLEY'S NIGHTCLUB LIMITED AND ANOR CA CA265/05

Citation

openlaw-60d06af2_f503_4d72_8832_b3d1e12cdf8a.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

On proper construction of the contractual arrangements and in light of the surrounding matrix (including the assignment), Stanley's was required to assume liability for both loans and there was no actionable misrepresentation by IBA; the High Court's contrary decision was set aside and the District Court judgment restored.
9 Aug 2006

LAWRENCE RIVERSIDE LIMITED V C P HOLDINGS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2006-404-4739

Citation

openlaw-add9a53a_a5a6_4108_8936_37258398c4e9.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court granted a short-term ex parte interim injunction because the plaintiff established an arguable case on lease breaches and equitable set-off, demonstrated risk of irreparable prejudice from immediate re-entry, and the balance of convenience favored preserving the status quo pending a prompt inter partes hearing; a strict timetable for service and affidavits was imposed.