New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Derivative actions

Legal area

Court

22 Sept 2015

BALLANTYNE TRUSTEES LIMITED v PAPPRILL HADFIELD & ALDOUS SOLICITORS NOMINEE COMPANY LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2294

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2294
Court

High Court

S165 leave was refused because applicants failed to establish a prudent business person would commence the proposed High Court claim given the absence of expert valuation and marketing evidence and low prospect of success; s284 relief was refused because applicants failed to show a credible factual basis or that the liquidators' decision not to sue was unreasonable; the liquidators' decision was reasonable on the evidence.
7 Mar 2014

NOBILO v NOBILO [2014] NZHC 401

Citation

[2014] NZHC 401
Court

High Court

Leave was refused because, applying the s165 factors and the prudent businessperson test, the prospects of meaningful recovery were marginal: liability was uncertain in the context of an inevitable client split, likely losses were modest and speculative when offset by reduced costs, and litigation costs and complexity made the action imprudent; relationship property and trustee/family remedies were preferable avenues and the applicant may reapply if those fail.
22 Feb 2010

CATLEY V WAIPA CORPORATION LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-007975

Citation

openlaw-27f140df_7655_4d4c_b653_aef0aa75de0b.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave under s165 refused because applicant failed materially to satisfy the s165(2) considerations and the prudent business person test: no reliable evidence of profits from the sale of Lots 1 and 2 to justify an account of profits (valuation evidence speculative and insufficient), the Eros loan was commercially justified and necessary such that litigation would be imprudent, pre-purchase payments were approved with independent methodology and applicant acquiesced, and alternative remedies or existing s174 proceedings are more appropriate.
24 Nov 2005

HOOK V GULF HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ORS HC AK CIV-2002-404-1931

Citation

openlaw-a6ed8904_0b5a_418b_9b1b_82b4661e3942.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave was granted under s 248 Companies Act 1993 for the existing plaintiff to continue the proceedings in respect of the matters pleaded in the draft statement of claim because the claims were not shown to be clearly unsustainable, the issues were complex and not suitable to be resolved solely through winding up procedures, and the court was satisfied there was not a more convenient procedure for determining the claims.

New Zealand Case Law

BALLANTYNE TRUSTEES LIMITED v PAPPRILL HADFIELD & ALDOUS SOLICITORS NOMINEE COMPANY LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2294

NOBILO v NOBILO [2014] NZHC 401

CATLEY V WAIPA CORPORATION LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-007975

HOOK V GULF HARBOUR DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ORS HC AK CIV-2002-404-1931