New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deadlock resolution

Legal area

Court

27 Nov 2018

Jespersen v Secretary of the Treasury [2018] NZHC 3086

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3086
Court

High Court

The court held that a broad‑brush allocation was appropriate: 80% of the applicants' pre‑case management claimed costs were partnership business and are payable from the net sale proceeds (being NZD 20,436) with filing disbursements of NZD 1,280 also payable from the proceeds; remaining partnership issue costs lie where they fall because overall success was limited and conduct and offers (Calderbank) did not justify a different outcome.
22 Apr 2016

MCVITTY v WAEWAEPA STATION 2002 LIMITED [2016] NZHC 765

Citation

[2016] NZHC 765
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied the application was brought honestly and for proper purposes (to determine whether Waewaepa had been financially mismanaged and to enable shareholders to decide protective measures), the nominated auditor(s) were proper persons, and an audit covering financial years ending 30 June 2012–2015 together with a stock reconciliation in June 2016 was appropriate to resolve the deadlock and assist shareholders; accordingly Grant Thornton was appointed to conduct the audits and stock reconciliation.
16 Sept 2015

BUCKERIDGE v BUCKERIDGE, MCKENZIE AND SHB TRUSTEES LTD [2015] NZHC 2231 [16 September 2015]

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2231
Court

High Court

Because the Trust was deadlocked, the first-named respondent was unresponsive and the interests of the beneficiaries required resolution, the Court removed the first-named respondent as trustee and granted leave for the proceeding to be brought by originating application under HCR 19.5; orders were made in terms of the draft removing trustee and ancillary orders.
17 Jul 2014

LAKE HAYES PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED v PETHERBRIDGE [2014] NZHC 1673

Citation

(2014) 15 NZCPR 590
Court

High Court

The Court authorised cancellation of the unit plan because the body corporate was effectively defunct and the units were past economic life making redevelopment necessary; having found the parties deadlocked and that sale or purchase was necessary, the Court exercised its s339 discretion to require the majority co-owner to purchase the minority 9.15% share for $274,500 (an above-market but agreed commercial sum) and to pay 9.15% of any excess if the property sells within 12 months for over $3,000,000; ancillary compensation beyond fair market price under s343 was not ordered.
14 Mar 2014

POWELL v POWELL AND ANOR [2014] NZHC 476

Citation

[2014] NZHC 476
Court

High Court

Because the trust deed contemplated the settlor's intention to have the child named trustee and the defects alleged against the defendant did not demonstrate ongoing misconduct or incapacity sufficient to override that intention, the minimal necessary intervention was to remove the plaintiff trustee and replace him with an independent professional trustee while allowing the defendant to remain as trustee under the oversight of the independent trustee to ensure proper execution of the trust.

New Zealand Case Law

Jespersen v Secretary of the Treasury [2018] NZHC 3086

MCVITTY v WAEWAEPA STATION 2002 LIMITED [2016] NZHC 765

BUCKERIDGE v BUCKERIDGE, MCKENZIE AND SHB TRUSTEES LTD [2015] NZHC 2231 [16 September 2015]

LAKE HAYES PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED v PETHERBRIDGE [2014] NZHC 1673

POWELL v POWELL AND ANOR [2014] NZHC 476