New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Piercing corporate veil

Legal area

Court

26 Jul 2021

B W (2004) LIMITED v MLOUK [2021] NZHC 1894

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1894
Court

High Court

Sole shareholding and sole directorship do not, by themselves, create a legal or beneficial interest in company land for the purposes of the PRA; Clayton does not authorize sweeping aside corporate separateness to convert company land into the personal relationship property of a shareholder/director; because no registrable interest in the companies' properties existed, the notices of claim over the 66 properties must be removed.
8 Feb 2018

Hamilton v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlements)

Citation

[2018] NZACC 30
Court

District Court

The District Court held ACC was entitled to apply s15(3) to post-incapacity earnings (it need only take tax returns into account and is not bound by them) and, on the facts, the tax returns for 2004–2014 could properly be treated as unreasonably influenced; ACC's allocation of 75% of Olette Ltd's profits to the appellant as reasonable remuneration for services was a justified and reasonable exercise of discretion for abatement purposes. The appeal was dismissed.
16 Dec 2014

ROWMATA HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS v HILDRED & ORS (COSTS) [2014] NZHC 3257

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3257
Court

High Court

Court allowed additional Category 2B costs for a second inspection (1.5 days), refused certification for second counsel, ordered defendants to contribute to non‑party discovery costs (one third contribution to ASB Bank costs and half of costs paid to Rodgers Law and Staples Rodway), disallowed flights/accommodation for a party liquidator and for uncertified second counsel, allowed service fees, and awarded an additional half day to reflect extra preparation time caused by defendants' late amendments; increased costs claim otherwise refused to avoid double counting.
4 Sept 2014

MRS X v COMPANY A [2014] NZHC 2126

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2126
Court

High Court

Mrs X failed to discharge the burden of showing Mr X had a reasonably arguable beneficial interest in the Company A properties either by constructive trust or because Company A was a sham/alter ego; key reasons were absence of evidence that Mr X had the requisite reasonable expectation that Company A would yield an interest, the December 2008 sale to Company A was a commercial arms‑length transaction so any vendor entitlements were to payment or later share interests, and there was no evidence of a common intention to create a sham; accordingly the application to prevent lapse of the notice o…
18 Aug 2009

MCNAMARA AND MCNAMARA AS TRUSTESS OF THE PH MCNAMARA FAMILY TRUST V MALCOLM J LUSBY LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-2967

Citation

openlaw-0d20f847_8bbe_4263_985c_8787a523f162.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found uncontroverted evidence that Auckland Rubber Roofing Co Ltd carried out and invoiced the waterproofing work and that the trustees failed to plead or adduce any compelling factual or legal basis to pierce the separate corporate identity of that company; common use of a trade name, website and advertisements was insufficient to attribute liability to The Rubber Roofing Co. Group Ltd, so the plaintiff's cause of action against the group could not succeed and summary judgment for the group was granted.
11 Jun 2009

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE AS ASSIGNEE V SANCTUARY PROPVEST LIMITED HC AK CIV-2009-404-0852

Citation

openlaw-520816ce_9f4e_47b0_89bb_dfdd02f8b4c8.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court found there was a reasonably arguable case that Sanctuary Propvest and the Sanctuary Trust were operated as a façade by Armitage to enable acquisition and control of the property while bankrupt; it was reasonably arguable that the corporate veil could be pierced and that Sanctuary Propvest held the property on constructive trust for Armitage, such that the Official Assignee demonstrated an arguable equitable interest and the caveat should not lapse.
5 Oct 2006

SENSATION YACHTS LTD V THE WORLD OF INTERIORS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2006-404-1355

Citation

openlaw-8f4611a2_067c_43ce_8feb_fab0dec8195f.pdf
Court

High Court

Damages must be calculated by reference to the loss suffered by the contracting company itself; the High Court allowed the appeal in part because the District Court had erred by including an additional $65,000 compensatory sum for the manager personally, reducing the company award to $92,308 and awarding pre‑judgment interest from date of breach.

New Zealand Case Law

B W (2004) LIMITED v MLOUK [2021] NZHC 1894

Hamilton v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlements)

ROWMATA HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) & ORS v HILDRED & ORS (COSTS) [2014] NZHC 3257

MRS X v COMPANY A [2014] NZHC 2126

MCNAMARA AND MCNAMARA AS TRUSTESS OF THE PH MCNAMARA FAMILY TRUST V MALCOLM J LUSBY LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2006-404-2967

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE AS ASSIGNEE V SANCTUARY PROPVEST LIMITED HC AK CIV-2009-404-0852

SENSATION YACHTS LTD V THE WORLD OF INTERIORS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2006-404-1355