New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oppression

Legal area

Court

2 Nov 2023

WADSWORTH v COGNATA INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 3063

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3063
Court

High Court

The court held that the unauthorised removal of the plaintiff's shareholding in 2016 unjustly prejudiced him and warranted confirmation that the companies register records the plaintiff as sole director and sole shareholder; the shares are confirmed as held by him in his capacity as trustee of the Zurich Oak Trust, and the second defendant is disqualified from being director by reason of bankruptcy; costs were declined and ordered to lie where they fall given the circumstances and insolvency implications.
31 May 2023

CHEN v GENERAL FINANCE LTD [2023] NZHC 1329

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1329
Court

High Court

Leave to commence by originating application was refused because it was not in the interests of justice: applicants had no legal or equitable right at immediate risk by enforcement of the PLA notices, they failed to raise a serious question to be tried on oppression or statutory breaches, the s119 notice had expired unremedied allowing enforcement, and the balance of convenience favoured the respondent.
3 Mar 2023

BODY CORPORATE 201036 v WHAI RAWA RAILWAY LANDS LP [2023] NZHC 389

Citation

[2023] NZHC 389
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the High Court applied the correct legal tests for strike out and summary judgment, the applicant did not demonstrate an arguable error of law or fact of sufficient general importance, and material factual disputes (arm's length bargaining and conflicting expert evidence) required discovery and a substantive hearing; on balance delay would prejudice the respondent more than the applicant.
3 Jun 2022

EVAN KERRY STEWART v ELIZABETH HELEN KEENE AND LUKE NORMAN AS LIQUIDATORS OF EVERSONS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2022] NZSC 70

Citation

[2022] NZSC 70
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the question raised was essentially factual and discretionary, the Courts below rightly concluded s 266 applies even where collateral proceedings exist provided the power is not used oppressively, there was no basis to read down s 266 under s 27 NZBORA, and the exercise of discretion to order examination was correct given the applicant's non-cooperation.
9 Feb 2022

BIRCHFIELD v BIRCHFIELD HOLDINGS LIMITED [2022] NZHC 124

Citation

[2022] NZHC 124
Court

High Court

Costs awarded to defendants on the summary judgment application because the defendants' buy-out offer, viewed in substance and including minor refinements made during the hearing, cured the plaintiffs' complaints and therefore the plaintiffs lost the proceeding; however specific costs claims were disallowed where linked to corporate defendants' written submissions, counterclaims, or duplicated work and limited allowances were made for shareholder defendants' items.
24 Sept 2020

ROBERTS v KIRK ROBERTS CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 2511 [24 September 2020]

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2511
Court

High Court

The court granted the plaintiff's application for directions: it is appropriate to serve the named directors and shareholders by service on their nominated representatives; where a director is also a shareholder single service suffices but is to be recorded as serving both capacities; where a parcel of shares appears held by multiple trustees service on the nominated representative trustee is sufficient to bring the proceedings to the attention of those parties.
5 Aug 2020

WATHERSTON v PGW RURAL CAPITAL LIMITED [2020] NZCA 329

Citation

[2020] NZCA 329
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that for s 125(1)(c) CCCFA the trigger for the one year limitation is the contractual due date for performance of the last obligation (in practice the last day for repayment) and not any later enforcement or default obligations; on the facts time began to run by 6 May 2013 and the appellant's proceedings were statute-barred; appeal dismissed.
23 Jan 2019

WATHERSTON v PGW RURAL CAPITAL LIMITED [2019] NZHC 22

Citation

[2019] NZHC 22
Court

High Court

The court held s125 runs from the due date for performance of the last obligation required to be performed under the credit contract (or from an earlier date of termination where the contract was terminated), 'termination' meaning cancellation of the contract rather than later satisfaction of residual obligations; here demand and notice of enforcement dated 6 May 2013 brought the contracts to an end for limitation purposes and the one-year limitation expired by 6 May 2014, so the Part 5 CCCFA claims filed in 2018 were statute-barred and were struck out.
3 Aug 2017

BAKER v HODDER [2017] NZCA 355

Citation

[2017] NZCA 355
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed as moot because the subject asset had been sold and the sale proceeds applied to company debts, leaving no live issue for the Court to determine; accordingly the Court declined to consider the merits or admit further evidence and made no costs order.
8 May 2017

VALMAR TRUSTEE LIMITED v SMART WATER TECHNOLOGY LIMITED [2017] NZCA 161

Citation

[2017] NZCA 161
Court

Court of Appeal

The appellants failed to prove unfairly prejudicial conduct under s174 because the related‑party arrangements (Ivent supplying goods at a margin, carrying debt, providing staff and support) were not adverse to Smart Water's financial interests or to the appellants as shareholders, the statutory breaches and information failures did not result in actual prejudice or exclusion of the minority, insolvency was not established because the main creditor (Ivent) did not intend to demand repayment and continued support made winding up unjustified, therefore it was not just and equitable to grant reli…