New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidator claims

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2022

JINDAL v ORANGE CAPITAL LTD [2022] NZCA 540

Citation

[2022] NZCA 540
Court

Court of Appeal

The claim was a common law debt action by the company in liquidation and did not invoke s301 or the voidable transaction provisions of the Companies Act 1993; therefore the District Court had jurisdiction under the District Courts Act 2016 to hear the claim, the appellant had no arguable entitlement to salary without s161 authorisation and failed to establish a credible set-off, further evidence was irrelevant to the legal issue, and the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
19 Oct 2022

SMARTPAY LTD v KUMAR [2022] NZHC 2685

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2685
Court

High Court

The evidence established Smartpay was owed $850,427.43 (1159 unreturned terminals valued at $399,855, $120,407.43 owed at liquidation, and $330,165 post-termination fees); under s301(1)(b)(ii) the defendant must contribute that sum to the company's assets, interest is payable under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016, and the defendant's non-attendance (despite remote attendance options) did not prevent a fair hearing.
3 May 2022

In the matter of EAST WIND COMPANY LTD (in Liquidation) [2022] NZHC 903

Citation

[2022] NZHC 903
Court

High Court

Because the liquidators had a genuine and reasonable basis to commence the proceeding to secure appointment of an administrator to pursue claims and they achieved their objective when an administrator was proposed, the interests of justice did not favour awarding costs to the interested parties; accordingly costs are to lie where they fall.
27 Apr 2022

DE & KM GALE LIMITED (In Liquidation) v GALE & ANOR [2022] NZHC 828

Citation

[2022] NZHC 828
Court

High Court

Grant freezing order because applicant established a good arguable case on the debt, demonstrated assets (property) subject to a real risk of dissipation (property listed for sale and no undertakings), and special circumstances justified acceptance of an inadequate undertaking as to damages.
23 Nov 2018

DP ALAM HORTICULTURE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v SORENSEN [2018] NZHC 3062

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3062
Court

High Court

High Court Rule 15.23 creates a presumption that a defendant is entitled to costs following a plaintiff's discontinuance; that presumption was not displaced where the plaintiffs' asserted justification (lack of funding and disputed merits) was not sufficiently compelling or obvious to outweigh the rule, and the defendant was therefore entitled to costs subject to adjustment for work not performed or inappropriate claims.
28 Aug 2018

SENTRY HILL WINERY (2006) LIMITED (in liq) v PARKES [2018] NZHC 2223

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2223
Court

High Court

Defendant was liable to repay the overdrawn shareholder current account and liable for breaches of ss 135, 136 and 137 by permitting the insolvent company to continue trading from at least 1 January 2013, causing provable losses; judgment entered for plaintiffs for specified monetary sums with interest and costs; defendant could not rely on late evidence after his defence was struck out.
24 Oct 2017

C D OWENS AND D S VANCE AS LIQUIDATORS OF HAGFISH NZ LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v P COLEMAN [2017] NZHC 2575

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2575
Court

High Court

The application to set aside was granted because the court concluded there is an arguable substantial ground of defence given the insufficiency and contestability of the plaintiffs' primary evidence and their reliance on a provisional IRD NOPA and reconstructed records, and because there was no evidence the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable prejudice if judgment were set aside.
28 Jul 2016

VIVIEN JUDITH MADSEN-RIES AND HENRY DAVID LEVIN AS LIQUIDATORS OF PETRANZ LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v DARRELL WARREN KARANEIHANA PETERA [2016] NZSC 94

Citation

[2016] NZSC 94
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because, although the interpretation of "fair to the company" in s 161(5) raised an arguable issue of public importance, it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave: resolving the issue would require a fresh factual assessment of fairness in the particular case (an application question, not a pure point of principle), and proportionality, mootness and absence of a contradictor given the respondents' impecuniosity meant further appeal would be impractical and of limited utility.
9 Dec 2010

646 VICTORIA (HAMILTON) (IN LIQN) V HUNT HC HAM CIV 2009-419-001640

Citation

openlaw-1bc5a3f2_9274_4d2c_aa21_c18aa020ebcb.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused because there remained genuine disputes and evidential gaps — in particular unresolved and potentially dispositive assertions that the defendant advanced significant funds to the company (recorded in solicitor trust accounts not yet scrutinised) and unresolved non-cash items in the liquidators' schedule — such that the matters required trial and directions for further disclosure and case management.
14 Oct 2009

LEWIS V MASON AND MELTZER AS LIQUIDATORS OF GLOBAL PRINT STRATEGIES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) SC 71/2009

Citation

SC 71/2009
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Appeal was correct to include post-liquidation interest in the indebtedness, causation by the directors' neglect was properly found, and the existing liability cap and the applicants' total neglect meant no substantial or arguable error of public importance or miscarriage of justice was shown warranting further appeal.