New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deregistration

Legal area

Court

18 Apr 2023

KHAN v NEW ZEALAND MUSLIM ASSOCIATION [2023] NZHC 802

Citation

[2023] NZHC 802
Court

High Court

The applicants' claims against NZMA failed because the settlement agreement removed any proven breach by the first respondents (eliminating the necessary foundation for knowing receipt), NZMA did not possess the requisite knowledge of a breach nor induced any assumption giving rise to estoppel, and the Registrar's dissolution was lawful on the winding up resolution; accordingly the applicants' second, third and fourth causes of action were dismissed.
7 Jul 2022

WELLINGTON GATEWAY GENERAL PARTNER NO. 1 LIMITED v THE REGISTRAR GENERAL OF COMPANIES [2022] NZHC 1606

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1606
Court

High Court

Because the Registrar’s stated grounds for deregistration were plainly incorrect given the partnerships’ active role and substantial assets and contracts, the Court exercised its statutory powers under s101 LPA and s329 CA to restore the two limited partnerships to the Register and to order that property vested in the Crown upon removal be revested in the partnerships as if removal had not occurred.
18 Feb 2022

AUCKLAND HOTEL INVESTMENTS LTD v REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2022] NZHC 224

Citation

[2022] NZHC 224
Court

High Court

AHIL is a creditor by reason of the engineer's certified decision and has an undischarged claim which it intends to pursue, therefore the Court grants leave to commence the originating application and in the exercise of its discretion under s323(1) orders that SDCIC remain on the Companies Register.
27 Aug 2020

FAMILY FIRST NEW ZEALAND v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZCA 366

Citation

[2020] NZCA 366
Court

Court of Appeal

On the rehearing the Court of Appeal (Clifford and Stevens JJ majority) held Family First's trust objects, read as a whole, include advancement of education through commissioned research and public dissemination and advocacy for the public value of marriage and family; those purposes qualify as charitable (second head and, by analogy, fourth head). The Board's deregistration was set aside because the Board erred by focusing primarily on controversial advocacy and specific activity rather than the declared objects, and Family First's non-charitable advocacy for specific law changes is, on the…
31 Aug 2018

FAMILY FIRST NEW ZEALAND [2018] NZHC 2273

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2273
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the appeal: Family First's primary purpose is advocacy for a specific 'traditional family' model and the evidence fails to show that the advocacy or outcomes it seeks would be a public benefit in the charitable sense; several of its policy aims are contestable or authoritatively non-charitable (eg abortion/assisted dying) and its publications primarily promote a viewpoint rather than objectively advance education, so non-charitable purposes are not merely ancillary and deregistration is justified.
1 Jun 2017

INNOVATIVE SECURITIES LIMITED v FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY [2017] NZHC 1187

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1187
Court

High Court

The High Court held the FMA lawfully directed deregistration: ISL did not provide financial services in or from New Zealand but only administrative and compliance support from its NZ office; continued registration was likely to create a false and misleading appearance that ISL's services were provided from and regulated by New Zealand and thus risked damaging NZ's financial markets' reputation; the FMA complied with s18B(3) and natural justice and properly exercised its specialist regulatory discretion; ISL failed to discharge the onus to show the FMA was wrong.
13 May 2016

FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY v VIVIER AND COMPANY LIMITED [2016] NZCA 197

Citation

[2016] 3 NZLR 70
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that under s 18B the FMA must take into account the considerations in s 18A and may, using its specialist knowledge, draw reasonable inferences (including from the absence of meaningful financial services or activity in New Zealand) without registrant‑specific evidence to direct deregistration; the FMA did not breach natural justice by failing to disclose the anonymous complaint or by declining to provide further particulars, and the High Court's quashing of the deregistration was overturned and the deregistration direction restored.
18 Dec 2015

EXCELSIOR MARKETS LTD v FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY [2015] NZHC 3334

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3334
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the FMA had a sufficient evidential basis to conclude that Excelsior's substantive financial services were provided predominantly outside New Zealand while only administrative/support activities occurred in New Zealand, registration was likely to create a false or misleading appearance that services were provided from or regulated by New Zealand and risked damaging the reputation and integrity of New Zealand's financial markets, the FMA properly took into account s 18A in exercising its discretion under s 18B, followed required procedure, and there was no…
8 Aug 2013

PLUMBERS, GASFITTERS AND DRAINLAYERS BOARD v CHARITIES REGISTRATION BOARD [2013] NZHC 1986

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1986
Court

High Court

The Court held that the PGDB's primary and exclusive purpose is the protection of public health and safety by ensuring competency in sanitary plumbing, gasfitting and drainlaying; its regulatory functions are means to that charitable end and any benefits to practitioners are incidental rather than independent. The protection of the public in these trades is a public benefit falling within the spirit and intendment of the Preamble (analogous to the Medical Council decision). Accordingly the Board's deregistration decision was set aside.
2 Jun 2011

LIBERTY TRUST v CHARITIES COMMISSION HC WN CIV 2010-485-000831

Citation

openlaw-558415ce_eaf7_4b65_b90a_08b4263d723f.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held Liberty Trust's primary purpose is the advancement of the Christian religion because its teaching of biblical financial principles and the interest-free lending scheme are integrated practical outworkings of its faith; the public benefit presumption for religious charities was not rebutted on the facts; the Charities Commission erred in law and in its factual assessment by separating the teaching and lending and by treating member benefits as dispositive; the deregistration was set aside and Liberty Trust reinstated.