New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Interim liquidators

Legal area

Court

5 Oct 2023

PROBIS FINANCIAL SERVICES PTY LTD (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED) v MARS CAP LTD [2023] NZHC 2788

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2788
Court

High Court

The application for a stay was dismissed and treated as an adjournment request; a short adjournment to 1 November 2023 was granted because a significant creditor (Longchamp) supported a finite adjournment, the adjournment posed limited prejudice given interim liquidators were in place, and there was at least a realistic prospect that a resolution could be explored. However, because the interim liquidators were also administrators of Probis (a major creditor) and that dual role created a real risk of compromised independence given factual connections and potential competing claims, the Court r…
31 Mar 2023

CAPPER v RIVERSIDE PRIDE LIMITED [2023] NZHC 683

Citation

[2023] NZHC 683
Court

High Court

The court found the second respondent acted unreasonably in pursuing interlocutory applications that lacked merit and were unnecessary, but that the conduct did not reach the level justifying indemnity costs. Applying r 14.6 and relevant authorities, a global award of 2B costs on all steps with a 50% uplift was appropriate given the interrelated nature of the work and the applicant's inability to segregate costs; disbursements were fixed separately, producing a total award of $45,895.50.
31 Aug 2020

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Tower City Holdings Ltd [2020] NZHC 2240

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2240
Court

High Court

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that Tower persistently and seriously failed to keep adequate accounting records as required by s194 (no ledgers or proper records, inconsistent financials, inability to reconstruct position), and the interim liquidators' investigations supported likely insolvency; those findings satisfied s241(4)(b) (and s241(4)(a) alternative) and justified a liquidation order and appointment of liquidators.
19 Jul 2019

THE FINANCIAL MARKETS AUTHORITY v FINANCIAL PLANNING LTD [2019] NZHC 1709 [19 July 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1709
Court

High Court

The FMA had standing and the affidavit evidence disclosed a compelling prima facie case of insolvency and misapplication of client funds with real and urgent risk to assets and investors; those circumstances justified dispensing with an undertaking in damages and appointing interim liquidators without notice under s246(1) to protect and investigate the companies' assets and client funds.
13 May 2019

BEST INVEST NZ COMPANY LIMITED (In Interim Liquidation) v JAPAN BUSINESS CONSULTING COMPANY LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1037

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1037
Court

High Court

The court appointed interim liquidators for East Wind Company Limited and East Wind Nominee Company Limited because Best Invest demonstrated creditor standing with bank records showing substantial payments (c. $7.17m and c. $1.25m) and there was a real risk to assets due to absence of directors after the sole director's death; applications against the other four companies were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence of dealings or standing, but without prejudice to renewal on new evidence. Interim liquidators' powers are limited to protecting and realising assets and their remuneration must…
8 May 2017

GALE & ORS v MARLBOROUGH COUNTRY LIMITED & ANOR [2017] NZHC 922

Citation

[2017] NZHC 922
Court

High Court

The company was deadlocked, had no useful purpose, and defendants ceased opposition; therefore it was just and equitable to appoint liquidators under s241(4)(d); the Court appointed liquidators and awarded costs to the plaintiffs, imposing costs liability on specified shareholders rather than the company.
21 Apr 2010

GBR INVESTMENT LIMITED V GOOSE BAY RANCH HOLDINGS LIMITED AND ORS HC CHCH CIV-2009-409-613

Citation

openlaw-3163e273_14d7_4c95_a43b_878aba3f25d0.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiff entitled to costs; indemnity costs refused as threshold not met but increased costs justified. Proceedings categorised as Category 3B due to complexity and required skills; scale costs of $39,342 uplifted by 50% produced $59,013. Disbursements of $7,142 allowed. Costs and disbursements to be paid jointly and severally by GBR Trustees Limited, GB Management Limited and Mr Paul Keung because he, though a non‑party, funded, controlled and benefitted from the defence.
14 Apr 2008

C R R HORTON AND ORS V ADVANTAGE POWER SYSTEMS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2008-404-001001

Citation

openlaw-42aaf649_b174_4ac4_8956_ee6315c22fd8.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion under s 246 and r700W to appoint interim liquidators because (1) a liquidation application was pending, (2) there was a strong likelihood of success given Motorpol's prior acknowledgement of indebtedness and failure to respond to the statutory demand and liquidation proceedings, and (3) there was a demonstrated need to preserve assets (cessation of trading, reported removal of property and risk of dissipation). The appointment was made ex parte as there was little or no prejudice to the company and an undertaking as to damages and reporting and limited power…
19 Jul 2007

FRESHA VALLEY V HARJIT GILL ENTERPRISES LIMITED HC AK CIV.2007-404-2852

Citation

openlaw-5bf32114_643b_4240_8ee4_b64f5452ff68.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the unmet statutory demand, the appointment of interim liquidators and credible evidence that sale proceeds existed and had been transferred to a third party, the Court required urgent preservation measures. The Court ordered Singh to surrender his passport(s) to prevent departure, required full compliance with prior disclosure orders, warned that failure to comply could lead to arrest and contempt proceedings, and maintained restraints on the sale proceeds to preserve creditors' interests pending the adjourned hearing.
19 Jul 2007

FRESHA VALLEY V HARJIT HC AK CIV.2007-404-2852

Citation

openlaw-44322773_7079_481a_8e89_8cc4a5b5c0e3.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the unmet statutory demand and risk of dissipation of sale proceeds and the imminent departure, the court ordered urgent preservation measures: Mr Singh must deposit passport(s) with his solicitor by 9pm (or alternative arrangements), must comply fully with existing disclosure orders, freezing orders against the bank and third party remain in effect, and the matter was adjourned for further hearing with warnings of possible arrest or contempt for non‑compliance.