New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oppression (s174 companies act 1993)

Legal area

Court

2 Aug 2018

GILLETTE v GREEN [2018] NZHC 1957

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1957
Court

High Court

Although there was a marginal evidential basis to conclude there was reason to doubt the plaintiff's ability to pay a likely costs order, the discretionary balance tipped against ordering security because the defendants delayed bringing the application, that delay exacerbated the plaintiff's impecuniosity and an order at this late stage would likely prevent the plaintiff from having his substantive claims heard.
12 Jul 2017

GOLDMAN & Ors v KIWI VISION LIMITED & Ors [2017] NZHC 1601

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1601
Court

High Court

The sealed judgment accurately reflected the judge's intention: the first cause of action was struck out as to both the first and second plaintiffs because the first plaintiff's bankruptcy resulted in loss of beneficial ownership (and related rights) which passed to the Official Assignee, leaving both plaintiffs without standing to obtain relief under s 174; accordingly no correction under r 11.10(1)(b) was required and the sealed judgment stands.
23 Nov 2016

STACEY & ORS v WATSON & ORS [2016] NZHC 2781

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2781
Court

High Court

Defendants succeeded on the merits and are entitled to costs on a category 2, band B basis for all steps; only the final Calderbank offer of $175,000 (one week before trial) justified an uplift for trial costs because plaintiffs unreasonably failed to accept a reasonable late offer given the real risk of failure and modest likely recovery, warranting a 25% uplift on 2B scale limited to trial costs.
27 Mar 2013

REEDER & Anor V REEDER & ORS HC TAU CIV-2012-470-599

Citation

openlaw-9c1fe21b_a9c2_4489_941c_6239cb52fe13.pdf
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because plaintiffs failed to establish specific grounds for believing the requested documents existed or would be relevant and proportionate; bank statements were unavailable due to retention limits and credit card statements and wholesale company records were not shown to be probative or necessary.
28 Feb 2013

KENT & ORS V GLENN & ORS HC AK CIV-2013-404-779

Citation

openlaw-4b5d8782_a9e3_4507_8dab_a1e33e1d2551.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for interim relief was denied because the applicants failed to establish a serious question to be tried on the pleaded statutory causes of action, and, alternatively, the balance of convenience favoured respondents: the substantive remedies sought were monetary and available (funds in trust), the injunction would not preserve the status quo and would deprive the second respondent of bargained commercial rights, and the Takeovers Panel's intervention and temporary orders provided adequate protection pending specialist review.
15 Aug 2006

FRANCIS V NEW ZEALAND FORGINGS LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2006-404-519

Citation

openlaw-f644a916_effd_49f7_828a_859adb8206dc.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that allegations of pre‑acquisition misrepresentation inducing purchase of shares and claims for employment compensation (remuneration as general manager) cannot be remedied under s174 because they do not relate to acts of the company nor to the applicant qua shareholder at the relevant time, and employment claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority; those parts of the statement of claim were struck out, while claims related to the plaintiff's removal as director, dividend entitlement and a potential share buy‑back remain tenable and sur…

New Zealand Case Law

GILLETTE v GREEN [2018] NZHC 1957

GOLDMAN & Ors v KIWI VISION LIMITED & Ors [2017] NZHC 1601

STACEY & ORS v WATSON & ORS [2016] NZHC 2781

REEDER & Anor V REEDER & ORS HC TAU CIV-2012-470-599

KENT & ORS V GLENN & ORS HC AK CIV-2013-404-779

FRANCIS V NEW ZEALAND FORGINGS LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2006-404-519