New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Oppression remedy

Legal area

Court

23 Oct 2018

AYYILDIZ v CASABLANCA SYLVIA PARK LIMITED [2018] NZHC 2782

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2782
Court

High Court

The court ordered limited further discovery as necessary for accurate share valuation: defendants must disclose IRD settlement documents (redacted only as to unrelated taxpayers), professional fees, and documents justifying indebtedness to related entities (Maxim Trading Ltd and Nazar Group Ltd). Accountants for parties must meet to resolve rebate allocation and related‑party indebtedness; no discovery ordered for POS till printouts or further ANZ merchant records; affidavit of documents to be served within four weeks and further case management to follow.
24 Aug 2018

INNES-JONES v INNES-JONES [2018] NZHC 2185

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2185
Court

High Court

The plaintiff failed to establish conduct amounting to oppression under s174; the defendant therefore succeeded and was entitled to costs on the 2B scale; no uplift was awarded because the plaintiff had not unnecessarily contributed to the time or expense of the proceeding; disbursements were also awarded to the defendant.
22 Aug 2018

BAKER v HODDER [2018] NZSC 78

Citation

[2018] NZSC 78
Court

Supreme Court

The Court allowed the appeal, holding the Court of Appeal should have heard the appeal; the High Court's final s174 order requiring the appellants to sign the s129 special resolution was quashed because the hearing process miscarried and the remedy was inappropriate and risked usurping statutory shareholder rights under s129; s174 can reach conduct by shareholders in limited circumstances but orders compelling shareholders to sign special resolutions are improper absent a fair hearing and clear basis for such relief.
20 Oct 2015

INTERNET TRADERS LTD AND ORS v WILLIAMS AND ORS [2015] NZHC 2562

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2562
Court

High Court

The Court reversed the Associate Judge's refusal to order discovery of business records for the trading period after resignation and ordered a verified list by 20 November 2015; it also reversed the Associate Judge's conditional order on solicitor file disclosure, remitted the privilege issue for determination after cross-examination to identify the holder of privilege (applying Evidence Act ss 54, 65 and 66), and adjourned the strike-out application pending a compliant Fourth Amended Statement of Claim to be filed by 20 November 2015; costs awarded to the Williams' interests on a 2B basis.
14 May 2013

GLENN ANDREW WALKER V G2 FINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2012-404-1088

Citation

openlaw-590b6426_2d4c_4a08_a263_b3f67d32987e.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed issue was moot and not justiciable: the alleged oppression and unfair dismissal cross-claims were not prosecuted and remained notional, and the asserted cross-claims involved distinct transactions and in at least one instance distinct parties so they could not constitute an equitable set-off preventing judgment on the matured loan.
5 Sept 2011

BLACK V GILTECH PRECISION CASTINGS (2004) LIMITED HC DUN CIV-2010-412-000105

Citation

openlaw-3482a187_b0da_4287_ad0c_d76827479e42.pdf
Court

High Court

The court ordered the plaintiffs to answer the interrogatory because communications about agreement are directly relevant to the objective question of what was agreed between the parties; the court ordered further particulars of the profit share entitlement because clause 12 is pleaded as part of the first cause of action and as part of an alleged variation to the shareholders agreement, making particulars necessary to clarify the claim; costs reserved with provisional view that costs of the interlocutory applications should lie where they fall given mixed results.
26 May 2010

RPB SOLUTIONS LTD V AVOCA HOLDINGS LTD HC AK CIV 2008-418-000167

Citation

openlaw-a0e64d1c_731f_4e26_9a85_f3da756f2bea.pdf
Court

High Court

A person who ceased to be a registered shareholder before the conduct complained of cannot bring an oppression claim under s 174 absent a temporal connection between their shareholding and the prejudicial conduct; beneficial ownership does not substitute for registered shareholder status; accordingly the applicant lacked standing and the s 174 claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and was struck out.

New Zealand Case Law

AYYILDIZ v CASABLANCA SYLVIA PARK LIMITED [2018] NZHC 2782

INNES-JONES v INNES-JONES [2018] NZHC 2185

BAKER v HODDER [2018] NZSC 78

INTERNET TRADERS LTD AND ORS v WILLIAMS AND ORS [2015] NZHC 2562

GLENN ANDREW WALKER V G2 FINANCE HOLDINGS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2012-404-1088

BLACK V GILTECH PRECISION CASTINGS (2004) LIMITED HC DUN CIV-2010-412-000105

RPB SOLUTIONS LTD V AVOCA HOLDINGS LTD HC AK CIV 2008-418-000167