5 Jul 2021
Plaintiffs established a serious question to be tried on parts of their s 174 claim, but the balance of convenience and overall justice favored maintaining the status quo; therefore the interim mandatory relief removing the defendant as director was unjustified and the application was dismissed. The court also declined leave to cross-examine on capacity absent special circumstances.
21 Dec 2018
Leave under s 165 was granted because the threshold requirement was met (company does not intend to bring proceedings), the prudent business person test favoured bringing the derivative claims given the strength of the applicant's evidence of substantial transfers from the company and the absence of contemporaneous documentation supporting respondents' version, and it is in the interests of NB Project Management that the proceedings be conducted on its behalf rather than left to the current directorate or shareholders.
20 Dec 2018
Court ordered security for costs of $100,000 payable in three instalments because credible evidence supported inference plaintiff may be unable to meet costs and the balance of merits favoured defendants; refused order requiring individual listing of solicitor-client privileged documents because Rules permit group listing and descriptions sufficient to assess privilege; granted third party discovery against KCM/Kerry Knight as documents were relevant to refinancing offers and defendants' case; refused plaintiff's discovery requests for litigation and solicitor-client privileged documents held…
6 Nov 2018
Costs on the preliminary standing hearing were awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B basis subject to a 10% reduction for the plaintiff's repeated breaches of timetable; on the substantive hearing costs were awarded to the defendants on a 2B basis up to 7 February 2018 and on an indemnity basis thereafter because the plaintiff unreasonably failed to accept a Calderbank offer; expert costs only allowed for Mr Martin and not for Mr Campbell.
18 Dec 2012
Court found plaintiffs have a good arguable s174 case, Totara's assets were at risk and interim control was required, but appointment of interim liquidators was unnecessary; instead the Court granted tailored interim injunctions restraining dividends, loans/advances/drawings, hiring, large salaries, real property purchases and disposals while permitting completion of a specified Oakura purchase and reserving leave to vary the injunctions.