New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Intent to defeat creditors

Legal area

Court

28 Jul 2023

XIAOXUAN QI and LIN ZHANG v FANG LIANG (also known as Ria Leung) [2023] NZHC 2010 [28 July 2023]

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2010
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied on the evidence—WeChat admissions, misrepresentation of sale proceeds, the defendant's home being on the market and her departure from New Zealand without provision to pay—that the defendant intended to defeat the plaintiffs' claim, and therefore granted leave to issue a pre-judgment charging order over the defendant's interest in 125 Grahams Road, Burnside, Christchurch (Record of Title CB34A/742).
4 Oct 2021

IKON BUILDING CO-OPERATION LTD v DUMASIA [2021] NZHC 2624

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2624
Court

High Court

Ikon failed to prove both that the conditional sale was a disposition from which the defendant intended to defeat creditors and that the requisite intent existed; conversion of land into cash for adequate consideration does not, without more, establish the necessary intent to defeat payment under r17.41, therefore leave to issue a pre-judgment charging order is refused and the existing charging order is discharged.
26 Feb 2021

ASI GLOBAL INVESTMENTS INC v YOUSEF [2021] NZHC 288

Citation

[2021] NZHC 288
Court

High Court

The charging order remains in force because ASI has an arguable case that the respondent transferred company assets and remains a creditor-defendant in foreign proceedings, the respondent is actively considering disposal (sale or harvesting) of the forestry block/harvesting rights which would significantly increase the risk of ASI being unable to satisfy any judgment, and the matters not disclosed on the without-notice application would not have altered the Judge's view under r 17.41; accordingly r 17.41(a) is satisfied.
7 Aug 2020

ASI GLOBAL INVESTMENTS INC v ABBAS IBRAHIM YOUSEF AL YOUSEF [2020] NZHC 1984

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1984
Court

High Court

The application for a pre-judgment charging order was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove a necessary link between the respondent's absence from New Zealand and an intent to defeat creditors as required by r 17.41; absence alone, without evidence of NZ connections or conduct showing use of that absence to defeat creditors, is insufficient to obtain the order.
26 Jul 2019

AHS CONSTRUCTION LTD v ANDREWS [2019] NZHC 1779

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1779
Court

High Court

Because the respondents are resident in Australia and had arranged a liquidation sale of their only New Zealand asset without making provision to pay AHS, the Court inferred an intent to defeat creditors under r 17.41(b) and granted leave to issue a charging order over Lot 1 DP 479371 (333 Pahoia Road) to secure payment of the amount AHS may obtain judgment for ($99,358.96).
6 May 2016

AMPLEXUS LIMITED v LIAO [2016] NZHC 924

Citation

[2016] NZHC 924
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to prove that the respondents left New Zealand with intent to defeat creditors as required by r 17.41; the evidence was insufficient and the application for leave to issue a charging order is declined.
9 Jul 2014

REYNOLDS v CALVERT AND ANOR [2014] NZHC 1603

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1603
Court

High Court

The application was declined because the plaintiff failed to prove current acts by the defendants removing, concealing or disposing of the Jacks Point property with intent to defeat creditors, and because a caveat already registered against the property preserved the status quo making a pre-judgment charging order unnecessary; the court accepted the plaintiff's substantive claim was strongly arguable but that alone did not satisfy Rule 17.41 requirements.
14 Sept 2009

BARFOOT & THOMPSON LIMITED V PARKER & ORS HC AK CIV 2009-404-005853

Citation

openlaw-be57a373_af05_4304_bdaf_55d7a6b5df23.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave was granted because the applicant established a prima facie case that respondents had acted to dispose or alter security over the property with an intention to defeat the applicant's claim and there was a real risk of further steps to thwart enforcement if relief was not granted ex parte.