5 Oct 2023
The prior High Court and District Court judgments were not shown to have been obtained by fraud; the Settlement Agreement was not illegal or voidable and was intended to end all related litigation; accordingly the plaintiffs had no reasonably arguable cause of action and the proceeding was struck out under r 15.1(1)(a) of the High Court Rules 2016.
17 Dec 2021
The Court of Appeal held the Associate Judge erred by applying hindsight and mischaracterising the legal effect of the shareholders' settlement; a reasonably competent liquidator in the circumstances was entitled to investigate the complaint and to obtain and act on legal advice that the settlement did not bind the company; therefore the liquidator's conduct was reasonable, her claimed remuneration of $101,729 and legal expenses were payable, and the High Court judgment and its costs order were set aside.
21 Aug 2020
Leave was refused because Liberte did not intend to pursue the claim, the proposed causes of action lacked a sufficient and coherent foundation to demonstrate a real prospect of success against the director, the claimed losses were speculative given financing shortfalls and the mortgagee sale price, and the likely costs of litigation were disproportionate to any realistic recovery; a prudent business person would not pursue the derivative claim.
28 Apr 2020
The plaintiff, a discretionary beneficiary of the trustee-shareholder, has standing at common law to bring multiple-derivative claims on behalf of the company where there is a good arguable case of wrongdoer control and a reasonable businessman would pursue the claim; Bartel Holdings Ltd must be joined as defendant; jurisdictional protest by the foreign director was set aside because service without leave met High Court Rules gateways and New Zealand is the appropriate forum; trust deed exemption clause 16.1 does not automatically bar claims because it excludes liability for ordinary mistakes…
24 Feb 2020
Because company business is conducted by the board under s138(1) and a shareholder lacks authority to sue in the company's name absent leave under s165, proceedings filed in the name of the companies without prior leave were procedurally and legally invalid and must be struck out.
3 Dec 2018
Because the plaintiff unreasonably refused the defendant's second settlement offer (which provided financial relief broadly equivalent to the eventual outcome), costs up to 23 March 2017 are awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B basis; costs between 23 March 2017 and 11 May 2018 lie where they fall; because the plaintiff unreasonably refused the third settlement offer after 11 May 2018 (and made an untimely and unreasonable counter-offer), the first defendant is entitled to 2B costs for the period after 11 May 2018.
23 Mar 2018
A stay of enforcement under High Court Rules 2016 r 17.29 was required because there was a clear and likely risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice if the charged shares were sold now — sale would irreversibly alter the status quo and could defeat related shareholder remedies in CIV 1035; MPRE had no urgent need for funds and there was no real risk of a shortfall if applicants failed in CIV 1035, therefore the balance of justice required a stay until 5 pm 28 September 2018 to allow pursuit of CIV 1035 and appeal.
27 Oct 2017
Leave under s165 was granted because MPRE did not intend to bring enforcement itself due to director conflict, enforcement had a high likelihood of recovering a substantial part of the judgment, anticipated enforcement costs were low relative to the judgment, and MP Mortgages' interests were sufficiently aligned with MPRE's to act in the company's best interests; reputational risks did not outweigh the company's interest in recovery.
12 Apr 2017
Court held TML was ungovernable under current structure and liquidation is not the appropriate remedy; instead First Plaintiff (Timothy Wilding) is granted a conditional opportunity to purchase the other shareholders' shares at a court-fixed fair value subject to strict terms. Key claims failed: WHHL did not owe enforceable right to renew Lagoon Flat in the terms pleaded and plaintiffs failed to prove loss; TMPL's lease claims (fertiliser, fences, rates, maintenance) were not proven to legal standard; DOC grazing licence held for TML (acquired by Mr and Mrs Wilding for TML); stock welfare pro…
28 Mar 2017
Leave under s165 was granted only to permit Mr Murphy to bring a derivative claim in the name of Dawnhaven Ltd limited to the Disputes Tribunal for recovery of his one-third share of the c. $27,000 paid to Mr Crisp because the claim was arguable, the sum fell within the Tribunal's jurisdiction thus minimizing cost and procedural barriers, the company would not pursue the claim due to Mr Crisp's control, and other larger or court-based claims and pre-commencement discovery were speculative and refused.