New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of director's duties

Legal area

Court

2 Feb 2021

TELFER ELECTRICAL NELSON LTD v TROTTER & ORS [2021] NZHC 53

Citation

[2021] NZHC 53
Court

High Court

Indemnity costs were not justified on the facts; however, conduct involving unsupported personal allegations and inefficient aspects of the litigation warranted a 25% uplift on scale costs in favour of the successful party; specific cost items such as photocopying were disallowed and costs consequences for third party discovery and certain case management hearings were allocated as set out in the orders.
17 Sept 2019

TARANAKI RECRUITMENT LTD (IN LIQ) v REID [2019] NZHC 2340

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2340
Court

High Court

Default judgment was entered for the liquidated sum of $50,065.40 in favour of the plaintiff; the court directed that Kiwibank pay that sum to the solicitors for the liquidator and awarded costs to the plaintiff on a 2B basis.
26 Jul 2018

DHC ASSETS LTD v ARNERICH [2018] NZHC 1865

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1865
Court

High Court

Further discovery and non-party discovery applications were dismissed as largely irrelevant or disproportionate to the issues in this proceeding except that the defendant must, if he chooses, file an affidavit of documents explaining payments from Vaco Investments (Lincoln Road) Ltd's bank accounts between 1 May 2013 and liquidation (excluding payments under $1,000); legal professional privilege claimed over communications with Martelli McKegg is upheld because the company (now in liquidation) holds privilege and has not waived it; only two challenged privileged documents were relevant and re…
8 Jun 2015

ALPHA BOX PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED (in liquidation) v WIEKART [2015] NZHC 1257

Citation

[2015] NZAR 1257
Court

High Court

Contemporaneous accounting records and admissions established the transfers were undocumented, unsecured inter-company advances made during winding down with no prospect of repayment; defendant failed to discharge onus of proving they were legitimate expense reimbursements; therefore defendant breached duties in ss131,133 and 137 and it was just and fair to order him to contribute the full amount transferred ($1,021,692.83) to company assets under s301(1)(b)(ii).
19 Nov 2014

MCGREAL FLOOR COVERINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v MCGREAL [2014] NZHC 2884

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2884
Court

High Court

The company was insolvent from at least 31 March 2007 and unable to pay debts from end of December 2007; the defendant, as sole director, continued trading without responsible consideration of the company's financial position, breached duties under the Companies Act and caused loss to creditors; accordingly the defendant must contribute NZD 240,330.04 to the company, interest to run from issue of proceedings, and plaintiffs are entitled to costs on a 2B basis.
10 Dec 2013

KIRIWAI CONSULTANTS LTD v HOLMES & ORS [2013] NZHC 3290

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3290
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to vary the consent order because the contested category of post-settlement documents had no discernible relevance to pre-settlement conduct and allowing the order to stand would cause injustice (including loss of the trial date) arising from counsel's misapprehension; accordingly the consent order was varied in the terms sought by Kiriwai.
15 May 2006

R NEEDHAM V EBT WORLDWIDE LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-001919

Citation

openlaw-b431d969_0746_4cd3_9db2_cf1b427aad02.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave granted to issue derivative proceedings in the name of EBT against the second respondent (Darby), the third respondent (IPS) and the fifth respondent (Cummins-White) because there were arguable prima facie claims of diversion of corporate opportunities and of knowing benefit/assistance, the applicant agreed to underwrite costs thereby addressing the cost/recovery imbalance, and there was no adequate alternative remedy likely to be pursued in liquidation; no leave granted against the fourth respondent (Henry) due to insufficient material to establish dishonest assistance.

New Zealand Case Law

TELFER ELECTRICAL NELSON LTD v TROTTER & ORS [2021] NZHC 53

TARANAKI RECRUITMENT LTD (IN LIQ) v REID [2019] NZHC 2340

DHC ASSETS LTD v ARNERICH [2018] NZHC 1865

ALPHA BOX PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED (in liquidation) v WIEKART [2015] NZHC 1257

MCGREAL FLOOR COVERINGS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v MCGREAL [2014] NZHC 2884

KIRIWAI CONSULTANTS LTD v HOLMES & ORS [2013] NZHC 3290

R NEEDHAM V EBT WORLDWIDE LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-001919