New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Creditors' rights

Legal area

Court

19 Apr 2016

MONOCRANE NZ LTD (IN LIQ) v MONCUR [2016] NZCA 139

Citation

[2016] NZCA 139
Court

Court of Appeal

Because Monocrane knowingly received significant benefits from the relationship property agreement (removal of mortgage risk and resolution of corporate control) and allowed Ms Moncur to act on that agreement, it is unconscionable for Monocrane and its liquidators to deny they are bound by the agreement; Monocrane (and thus the liquidators) are estopped from pursuing recovery of the shareholders' current account from Ms Moncur, so the appeal is dismissed.
22 Feb 2016

PRAM ENTERPRISES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v PAUL STEPHEN MANSFIELD [2016] NZHC 230

Citation

[2016] NZHC 230
Court

High Court

The shareholders' resolution contemporaneous to the transaction and other documentary and affidavit evidence established that the $390,855.18 was an advance by Pram for purchase of the property to be held under the TCF Trust; Mansfield failed to present a plausible contrary case or credible evidence that the payment discharged a debt to the BBC Trust; accordingly Mansfield had no arguable defence and summary judgment was entered for the debt. Mansfield is entitled to indemnity from TCF Trust assets and that right is secured by an equitable lien; Pram is entitled to be subrogated to those righ…
30 Jul 2014

GATESHEAD INVESTMENTS LTD v PARANUI PROPERTIES LTD CA622/2013 [2014] NZCA 361

Citation

[2014] 3 NZLR 516
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held on the facts that the parties manifested a mutual intention to sever the joint tenancy in equity prior to Mr Harvey's death; section 47 voids the relationship property agreement only to the extent necessary to satisfy the creditors' claim (which at the time of the agreement extended only to Mrs Harvey's half share) and does not nullify an antecedent equitable severance as to Mr Harvey's separate half share; accordingly only Mrs Harvey's one half share vested in the Official Assignee and the executor's position was upheld; the appeal was dismissed.
13 Aug 2013

DALE KING BUILDING SUPPLIES LIMITED v HATLEY [2013] NZHC 2045

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2045
Court

High Court

The adjudication was properly made so s 309(1)(a) did not apply; however annulment under s 309(1)(c) was granted because the bankrupt produced credible, time‑limited refinancing that will enable payment in full of all proved creditors and the Official Assignee's costs, subject to conditions requiring an undertaking and sealing within a fixed period.
16 Mar 2011

WGL RETAIL HOLDINGS LTD & ORS AND S J SHERMAN & ORS HC AK CIV-2011-404-001117

Citation

openlaw-be1a6d32_e0a2_4bff_9a6f_26c6d7de95e4.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the scale and complexity of the New Zealand companies, cross‑jurisdictional coordination with the Australian administration, the need to conduct a realistic sale process as a going concern and creditors' lack of opposition (including a secured creditor supporting extension), the convening period under s239AT(2) is extended to 17 September 2011 and the s239Y notice period is extended to the same date to enable proper administration and better creditor returns.
15 Nov 2010

POLYMER GROUP LIMITED V SOUTH VINEYARD LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-485-1298

Citation

openlaw-6f564884_1c1a_430b_aa1a_3f1490204e8e.pdf
Court

High Court

The Part 15 creditors' proposal is approved because it was properly conducted, supported by a vast majority of creditors by number and value, provides an immediate and tangible benefit (approximately 20% pro-rata payment) and a reasonable prospect of full settlement within 12 months; accordingly the Court will stay/dismiss liquidation applications contingent on timely distribution and compliance with conditions.
30 Jun 2010

GDF-I LLP V LIGHTER QUAY HOTEL MANAGEMENT LTD HC AK CIV-2010-404-001920

Citation

openlaw-a163a60b_85ca_4b95_b969_374fe98f1f5d.pdf
Court

High Court

The s236 application was held to be not arguable and doomed to fail because a very large majority of the affected unsecured creditors opposed the proposed compromise; accordingly the stay granted by Allan J was set aside and interim liquidators were appointed to protect creditor interests, while final liquidation was reserved pending any appeal with directions for prompt lodgment.
29 Sept 2008

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V PAULMEN SEALS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2008-404-001376

Citation

openlaw-f8fdf4cd_e791_499e_be5a_b130c0163cdb.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court may appoint proposed liquidators who disclose connections requiring s 280 authorisation, but must reserve leave for creditors to apply to vary or set aside that appointment after receiving the liquidators' s 255(2)(c) report; creditors must be given an opportunity to be heard and the Court will then make final determination on approval under s 280.