New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim liquidator appointment

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2023

PROBIS FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LTD v MARS CAP LTD [2023] NZHC 2215

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2215
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied Probis had a prima facie claim to approximately USD 38.4m, Mars Cap lacked independent control of funds (reliance on third‑party liquidity providers, one in liquidation and another suspended), the director failed to disclose information and there was a real risk of payments constituting voidable preferences; accordingly appointment of interim liquidators under s246 was necessary to preserve assets and protect creditors, and the proposed appointees were suitable.
15 Jun 2023

DELORME SE24 LIMITED (in Liquidation) v SPOT X LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1488

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1488
Court

High Court

Interim appointment of the Official Assignee was justified because Delorme proved necessity and expediency under s246: the director's failure to comply with a s261 notice, subsequent transfer of subsidiary shares shortly after the notice, and steps to avoid service created a real risk of dissipation of assets; appointing the Official Assignee preserved the status quo, protected creditor interests and was proportionate and neutral.
8 Dec 2022

UNITED BUILDERS LTD v MKOD DEVELOPMENTS LTD [2022] NZHC 3282

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3282
Court

High Court

Because only the presumption from an unsatisfied statutory demand existed and there was no firm evidence that MKOD's assets were being dissipated or at imminent risk — and the director's prior unrelated conviction did not meet the required threshold — it was not necessary or expedient to appoint an interim liquidator without notice; the application was therefore declined and the plaintiffs must serve and advertise their liquidation proceedings in the usual way.
1 Sept 2022

CAPPER v RIVERSIDE PRIDE LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2186

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2186
Court

High Court

Interim liquidators were appointed because an application to wind up the company had been filed, the Court was satisfied that application was likely to succeed given the irretrievable breakdown between the 50% shareholders and the co-director's conduct diverting company assets and benefiting himself, and the circumstances were urgent and justified appointment to prevent further diminution of assets, preserve the status quo for the dairy operation and protect creditors; proceeding without notice was justified by urgency and risk of further dissipation.
8 Aug 2022

ROBERT NIGEL GAULD v KIWI SHEDS NORTHLAND LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1917

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1917
Court

High Court

Interim liquidators were appointed because the evidence demonstrated a total breakdown of mutual trust and confidence between equal shareholder-directors producing a management deadlock, the companies could not be safely operated, solvency was uncertain and assets (including customer funds) were at risk; these factors satisfied s246 criteria that appointment was necessary or expedient to maintain asset value and protect creditors.
12 Jul 2022

SMITH v ECOLIBRIUM BIOLOGICALS HOLDINGS LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1642

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1642
Court

High Court

The applicant failed to discharge the onus to demonstrate necessity or expediency for interim liquidators: admissible evidence did not show assets in jeopardy, urgency, or that the liquidation application would likely succeed; absence of an undertaking as to damages was material; accordingly the interim liquidator appointment was refused.
7 Jul 2022

SPMAAH PTY LTD v ASJ COMMODITIES LP [2022] NZHC 1580

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1580
Court

High Court

Given credible evidence of material breaches (withholding financial disclosure, removal of Xero access, allegations of competing business) and mutual distrust making continuation impracticable, and the absence of adequate financial information placing assets potentially at risk, it was necessary and expedient under s246 Companies Act 1993 to appoint interim liquidators to preserve assets and report on the partnership's financial position; however the substantive liquidation proceeding is stayed to permit compliance with the partnership deed's dispute resolution clause for mediation, because t…
8 Apr 2022

NICOLA BAXTER v SUPERSCAPES LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES LIMITED [2022] NZHC 726

Citation

[2022] NZHC 726
Court

High Court

On the evidence the mutual trust and confidence between the 50/50 shareholders had irretrievably broken down and there was a real risk of dissipation and diversion of company assets exposing creditors to loss; accordingly an interim liquidator was necessary to preserve the company's assets and protect creditor interests, and Damien Mitchell Grant (licensed insolvency practitioner) was appointed.
6 Sept 2021

WARKWORTH RETAIL LTD v WARKWORTH HOLDINGS LTD [2021] NZHC 2314

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2314
Court

High Court

There was a valid winding‑up application that was likely to succeed, WHL was insolvent and recent related‑party transactions raised serious questions that could jeopardise asset value; although receivers had been appointed their remit was limited and would not necessarily investigate or prevent ongoing transactions, so it was expedient to appoint interim liquidators to preserve assets and provide oversight until the substantive application was resolved.
10 Sept 2020

HUNT v BARE METAL LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2357

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2357
Court

High Court

Applicant creditor had standing and the company no longer met s10 after the death of its sole director; the court was satisfied an interim liquidator was necessary to preserve the business and goodwill; proposed interim liquidator consented; s246(2) provides sufficient breadth of powers for preservation so expanded powers were unnecessary and were declined; advertising of the application was dispensed with given the preservation purpose.