New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Receivers' powers

Legal area

Court

24 Aug 2022

JACKSON v GRANT [2022] NZHC 2113

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2113
Court

High Court

Limited discovery was appropriate. The Court ordered Arena and Quaestor (and receivers to the extent they hold such documents) to produce documents relating to the negotiation and meaning of the 'Final Interest Payment'; ordered the receivers to produce the development budget, monthly engineer certification reports for civil works and monthly Quantity Surveyor reports; and ordered Arena and Quaestor to produce documents relating to decisions to incur the Preservation Costs and the reasons for and necessity of those Preservation Costs which remain in dispute. Discovery outside those narrow cat…
30 Aug 2019

RFD FINANCE LIMITED v FTG SECURITIES LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2157

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2157
Court

High Court

The discovery orders were rescinded because they were made without the factual basis that RFD and FTG were parties to the Walker proceeding and without evidence of control over the Walker documents; receivers were granted leave to make a formal application for discovery (including non-party discovery) supported by affidavit evidence or to use established avenues (access to court file); leave to file the fourth amended statement of claim deleting paragraph 8 was granted because the amendment narrows the issues, does not cause significant prejudice or delay, and is in the interests of justice,…
12 Sept 2011

ELIZABETH MARY LAMBERT V PLATEAU FARMS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) HC ROT CIV 2011-463-528

Citation

openlaw-a0780ca0_90b6_4fe3_9e7c_3e662d7456cb.pdf
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a serious question to be tried or an arguable claim to be a bona fide purchaser for value; directors lacked power to sell assets in receivership; title and priority lay with the receivers and/or an earlier purchaser; the proceeding was not properly commenced under the High Court Rules; costs were awarded to the respondents on a category 2B basis.
22 Dec 2005

AGNEW AND WALLER AND ANOR V PARDINGTON AND JARROLD AND ANOR CA CA109/05

Citation

openlaw-147cc014_c081_4313_910f_395c27888837.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 30A should be interpreted as limited to ensuring that purchasers take clear title and that subordinate security interests are extinguished only insofar as they affect the purchaser's rights in future proceeds in the purchaser's hands; it does not extinguish subordinate secured creditors' entitlement to priority in any surplus held or realised by the receiver, so subordinate secured creditors retain priority to such surplus; High Court order holding otherwise was set aside.

New Zealand Case Law

JACKSON v GRANT [2022] NZHC 2113

RFD FINANCE LIMITED v FTG SECURITIES LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2157

ELIZABETH MARY LAMBERT V PLATEAU FARMS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) HC ROT CIV 2011-463-528

AGNEW AND WALLER AND ANOR V PARDINGTON AND JARROLD AND ANOR CA CA109/05