New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Corporate veil

Legal area

Court

2 May 2017

TERRY HAY V LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZCA 153

Citation

[2017] NZCA 153
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed legal questions were not arguable for the purposes of s 214; Kidd does not establish a categorical requirement of proved legal insolvency before a non-party may be joined for costs under s 221 ERA and the Employment Court did not misapply the law in making an interlocutory joinder on the evidence of funding, control and the employee's inability to meet a costs order.
1 Aug 2016

STEEL & TUBE HOLDINGS LIMITED v LEWIS HOLDINGS LIMITED [2016] NZCA 366

Citation

[2016] NZCA 366
Court

Court of Appeal

Because STH treated Stube as a de facto part of the group and conducted its affairs in a way that made Stube a puppet (total management involvement, financial intermingling, STH's representations to the lessor and withdrawal of support causing liquidation), it was just and equitable under s271(1)(a) to order STH to pay the full amount of Lewis's claim; absence of formal causation or detrimental reliance did not preclude relief under s271/272.
12 Jul 2016

EDEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED v STANLEY DAVID WILLIAMS [2016] NZHC 1579

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1579
Court

High Court

The company, Eden Property, having succeeded in the proceedings challenging the statutory demand and absent any sufficient basis to pierce the corporate veil or to find the statutory demand procedure was properly used for a constructive trust claim, was entitled to recover costs; the respondent failed to demonstrate there was no genuine and substantial dispute over whether the payments were loans or the terms, and therefore costs were awarded to the applicant.
12 Oct 2011

COMMERCE COMMISSION V DEUTSCHE BAHN AG & ORS HC AK CIV-2010-404-005479

Citation

openlaw-1839752e_e38e_4606_8526_59803306e9a2.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that s27(1) claims based on entry into agreements overseas against Kuehne + Nagel must be dismissed because Kuehne + Nagel did not carry on business in New Zealand and s4(1) does not extend the Act to such overseas entry; however the Commission established a good arguable case under r6.29(1)(a) that s27(2) claims (giving effect to provisions) for specified agreements could be attributed to the parent under s90(2)(b) because there was plausible evidence the New Zealand subsidiary implemented the surcharges at the direction or with the consent of group agents, so the court assume…
21 Nov 2008

ASSET BUILDING M PRITCHARD LIMITED V HAMBEG LIMITED HC AK CIV-2008-404-3781

Citation

openlaw-43d31028_dcbc_4785_98a5_6e0d66254013.pdf
Court

High Court

Begley, as sole director and shareholder, controlled Hambeg's litigation and stood to benefit; his late filings and unmeritorious defences were designed to delay liquidation and prejudiced creditors and the applicant; those exceptional facts justify a personal costs order against Begley; Hambeg's application for leave is dismissed and Begley personally must pay costs of $2,240 on a 2B basis.
20 Jul 2007

SINGH V K & M K SINGH FARMS LIMITED AND ORS HC HAM CIV 2007-419-911

Citation

openlaw-15f292e7_2b7e_408f_ba7c_c3755270d57a.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found there was a seriously arguable case that the directors acted for an improper purpose by using the company as an alter ego to further Sandeep's matrimonial position, and that shareholders lacked power to ratify managerial decisions of the board in that context; the balance of convenience and interests of justice warranted an interim injunction restraining enforcement of the eviction resolutions pending Family Court consideration and further review on 29 August 2007.
27 Jun 2007

SABA YACHTS LIMITED V ANAE HC AK CIV-2007-404-1049

Citation

openlaw-535e826c_be72_43ef_b8b3_ca877c76e0c4.pdf
Court

High Court

Saba failed to demonstrate an arguable counterclaim or set-off sufficient to reduce the undisputed debt (approximately $108,000) below the statutory threshold; the proposed counterclaims are likely barred by res judicata or abuse of process and lack requisite evidential foundation; accordingly the statutory demand is not set aside and the application is dismissed.
21 May 2007

SOPAC HOLDINGS LIMITED V MONK HC AK CIV 2006-404-007031

Citation

openlaw-43c56a50_1436_4de8_a708_86296d571585.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found the defendant discharged the evidential onus of demonstrating a real risk the plaintiff company could not meet a costs award given lack of company financial disclosure, the director/shareholder's uncertain finances and history; exercising its discretion the Court ordered staged security for costs totalling $12,500 payable to the Registrar, and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of the application on a 2B basis.
5 Apr 2007

HANOVER FINANCE LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS ELDERS FINANCE LIMITED) V A M KRUKZIENER HC AK CIV2006-404-1667

Citation

openlaw-6325ba19_0f63_450f_900c_dde4a22a6bf0.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendant failed to provide a credible evidential foundation for any arguable defence: there was no identity of parties or authority to treat Hanover as party to the JVA for set-off, s92 notices were validly pleaded, served and proved, mortgagee sale proceeds were applied to Structured Finance debt and promissory estoppel was not established because the alleged promise was not clear or relied upon in a manner causing detriment; accordingly summary judgment was appropriate and entered for Hanover.
18 Oct 2006

CLARK V CRASBORN PACKING LIMITED HC NAP CIV 2006-441-000657

Citation

openlaw-a8257ea3_b4e3_4cf3_826b_1dfa4e701bd4.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to join Kiwi Crunch was refused because the proposed claims were legally and factually distinct from the respondent's claim, the application was delayed and joinder would cause unacceptable delay; summary judgment was properly entered because the packing contract was performed, the quantum was undisputed, and the appellant's allegations were vague, unsupported and legally insufficient to constitute a defence, counterclaim or set-off to the liquidated debt.