New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim liquidator

Legal area

Court

12 Dec 2023

LUCAS v AVETAR PROPERTIES LIMITED (COSTS) [2023] NZHC 3629

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3629
Court

High Court

The defendant was entitled to costs on a 2B basis assessed under High Court Rules Schedule 3 item 50, but not for memoranda and case management relating to the interim liquidator application (costs for that were held to lie where they fall), no second counsel allowance was warranted, one day preparation for a half‑day hearing is reasonable, and the defendant is awarded $16,252 in costs plus $220 in disbursements.
13 Sept 2023

LUCAS v AVETAR PROPERTIES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2552

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2552
Court

High Court

The Court found no evidence of imminent risk to the remaining properties, the applicant delayed after the earlier transfer and undertakings were given to preserve the assets; applying r14.8 and balancing the factors, the proper outcome was that costs in relation to the interlocutory application should lie where they fall and need not be reserved until the substantive proceeding.
13 Jul 2023

ZHENG v JUN YUE INVESTMENT LTD [2023] NZHC 1824

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1824
Court

High Court

No interim liquidator was appointed because jurisdiction was unclear (no liquidation application) and, even if available, liquidation would likely prejudice a viable company and the majority shareholder; however, an interim receiver was justified because the company's financial affairs are opaque, there is a substantial risk of asset dissipation identified by the Court, and the director's contradictory and materially inaccurate evidence (including undisclosed withdrawals of $1.698m) showed she could not be relied on to manage the company; accordingly Benjamin Francis was appointed as interim…
16 Sept 2022

UNITED BUILDERS LIMITED v MKOD DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2381

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2381
Court

High Court

Appointment of an interim liquidator was declined because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood that liquidation would succeed or that MKOD is unable to pay its debts; factual disputes about contracts and lack of information about MKOD's assets meant necessity or expediency under s246 was not established, and alleged urgency factors were insufficient to justify without‑notice appointment.
4 Jun 2021

GREEN v GLENHAVEN FARM LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1307

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1307
Court

High Court

Interim liquidation cannot be ordered ex parte where (a) statutory preconditions are unmet (no s282 consent), (b) the remedy is drastic and alternatives or respondent arguments may defeat an ex parte order; accordingly the application for an interim liquidator must be brought on notice and the proceeding transferred to the correct registry (Hamilton).
12 Feb 2021

PROTEA GROUP MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC v PACIFIC AEROSPACE LTD [2021] NZHC 158

Citation

[2021] NZHC 158
Court

High Court

The s 246 statutory test was satisfied: a valid winding-up application existed, the application was likely to succeed because PAL was insolvent and unable to pay debts, and urgent necessity to preserve the company's principal assets and CAA certification justified appointment of interim liquidators to maintain value and protect creditors; accordingly interim liquidators were appointed.
6 Aug 2018

MOTEL HOLDINGS LTD v TAIRUA PACIFIC HARBOUR LTD [2018] NZHC 1992

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1992
Court

High Court

The court declined to reserve costs pending arbitration because arbitration was unlikely to resolve the solvency question; the interim liquidator application failed but was not so hopeless as to justify increased costs; parties' substantive costs claims largely cancelled each other out; the plaintiff was penalised for two non-appearances and the defendant was awarded costs on a 2B basis for those appearances totaling $1,784.00; the plaintiff's costs application was dismissed.
20 Dec 2017

CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZCA 624

Citation

[2017] NZCA 624
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for a stay was declined because the High Court judge properly found a prima facie risk to the company's assets warranting appointment of interim liquidators under s246(1); the purpose of such an appointment is to maintain asset value and, except for truly perishable property, interim liquidators do not have power to dispose of company property absent an express limitation being varied, so a stay was unnecessary and the applicant may apply to recall or vary the High Court order if the interim liquidators act improperly.
25 Sept 2017

MOTEL HOLDINGS LIMITED v TAIRUA PACIFIC HARBOUR LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2327

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2327
Court

High Court

The application for an interim liquidator was dismissed because the plaintiff did not establish necessity or expediency: insolvency was not established on the material before the Court, the principal assets (management rights) were not shown to be in jeopardy, and the status quo could be maintained without appointing an interim liquidator despite a reasonable prospect the plaintiff might prove a debt.
12 Nov 2014

MORRISON v GK ACCOUNTING (ALBANY) LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2813

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2813
Court

High Court

The Court appointed interim liquidators because plaintiffs established a prima facie case for liquidation and demonstrated that the company was insolvent with specific deficits and tax arrears, there was credible evidence of asset diversion and doubtful related‑party transactions creating a real risk of dissipation, and it was expedient under s 246 and r 31.23 to appoint interim liquidators to preserve assets and protect creditors pending the substantive liquidation application.