New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Restoration of struck off company

  • 24 Jun 2020

    AZTEK LIMITED v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2020] NZCA 249

    Citation
    [2020] 3 NZLR 698
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    s40(1) and s40(2) are sequential: once land is found no longer required s40(2) is engaged and the chief executive's duty to 'endeavour to sell' includes making reasonable and proportionate inquiries (with due expedition) to determine whether an offer back is practicable; the delegate's decision of 21 February 2011 was unlawful because he treated the company's struck off status as dispositive without making reasonable inquiries as to restoration and potential offerees; the decision is set aside and must be reconsidered accordingly.

    • Offer back under s40 public works act 1981
    • Impracticability/unreasonableness under s40(2)
    • Restoration of struck off company
    • Reasonable inquiries/duty to act with due expedition
    • Discretionary relief

  • 8 Jun 2020

    COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v FAGHRIYAR & OR [2020] NZHC 1256

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 1256
    Court
    High Court

    Commissioner had an undischarged claim against the company by virtue of default assessments and commencement of Part 4A disputes before the company was struck off, satisfying s329(1)(a)(iv) and entitling the company to restoration; separately, the disputes being held in abeyance from May 2016 to December 2018 to protect the first respondent's fair trial rights constituted an exceptional circumstance beyond the Commissioner's control under s89L(3), the application was filed within time, and the Court exercised its discretion to extend the time to issue challenge notices by 12 months for both t…

    • Restoration of struck off company
    • Extension of time to issue challenge notices
    • Exceptional circumstances under s89l
    • Part 4a tax disputes procedure
    • S329 restoration grounds

  • 25 Sept 2015

    WORKSAFE NEW ZEALAND v REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2015] NZHC 2350

    Citation
    [2015] NZHC 2350
    Court
    High Court

    The court granted restoration because facilitating criminal proceedings is a legitimate purpose under s329, the third party lacked standing to oppose restoration in the manner advanced, and substantive allegations about the company's financial character are matters for later stages not for the restoration application.

    • Restoration of struck off company
    • Section 329 companies act 1993
    • Standing to make representations
    • Interaction between restoration and criminal proceedings

  • 25 Feb 2013

    YELCICH V DAVIES & CO SOLICITORS NOMINEE COMPANY LIMITED HC AK CIV 2012-404-007331

    Citation
    openlaw-f1d24a5e_f095_49f2_89d1_6c00a5d6b283.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    The statement of claim was struck out because Ms Yelcich, as an undischarged bankrupt, had her relevant proprietary interests vested in the Official Assignee and thus lacked standing to commence proceedings in her own name; the correct plaintiffs would be the Official Assignee or Sandhills Development Ltd if restored, and no consent had been given to proceedings in the bankrupt's name.

    • Bankruptcy vesting of property
    • Party standing
    • Strike out under high court rules r15.1
    • Nominee company regulatory compliance r13
    • Restoration of struck off company

  • 8 Nov 2012

    BANK OF NEW ZEALAND V CRISFORD TRUSTEE LIMITED (1689149) (STRUCK OFF) HC AK CIV-2012-404-6135

    Citation
    openlaw-362fc392_6bf5_4f48_bcae_c2a58ce2d01d.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Restoration was ordered because BNZ demonstrated a reasonably arguable case and that the struck off company was a necessary party to substantial litigation, making restoration just and equitable under s 329; accordingly the company should be restored and the Crisfords should pay the bank's costs on a 2B basis and reasonable disbursements.

    • Restoration of struck off company
    • Section 329 companies act 1993
    • Mortgage enforcement
    • Creditor rights
    • Estoppel
    • Costs

  • 15 Aug 2008

    RT TUPANGAIA V TAAKOKA ISLAND VILLAS LIMITED HC NAP CIV 2007-441-598

    Citation
    openlaw-0a7fba82_a7cb_43a4_a9de_6579984948e0.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    Because the petitioning creditor was reinstated under s 336(7) Companies Act 1955 and reinstatement has retrospective effect validating acts during removal, the creditor had standing at the operative times and there was no procedural defect or abuse of process; therefore s 119(1)(a) does not support annulment and the adjudication is not set aside.

    • Annulment of adjudication
    • Restoration of struck off company
    • Retroactivity of restoration
    • Standing to petition
    • Abuse of process

  • 31 Oct 2006

    TILES & TILES LIMITED V HOWARD, HOWARD AND MACKENZIE ELVIN TRUSTEES LIMITED HC TAU CIV 2006-470-00650

    Citation
    openlaw-b365e66e_3539_4b94_83b9_350def131ca2.pdf
    Court
    High Court

    On restoration under s 330(2) Tiles was deemed to have continued in existence and acts done while struck off were validated; there was no admissible evidence of an assignment to Tile Clearance and the failure to execute the Lease was inadvertent and has been remedied by execution and return of the Lease and Deed of Renewal; accordingly the Court exercised its wide discretion under s 118(2) Property Law Act 1952 to grant relief against forfeiture.

    • Relief from forfeiture
    • Standing of restored company
    • Restoration of struck off company
    • Lease execution
    • Assignment of lease