New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 298 companies act 1993

Legal area

Court

4 Jun 2020

KLAVENES v GREER [2020] NZCA 215

Citation

[2020] NZCA 215
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to adduce the alleged employment contract was declined because the evidence was not fresh, could and should have been produced with reasonable diligence (including in response to s261 notice and during the liquidation), raised significant credibility concerns, and admitting it would prejudice the respondent and creditors and undermine finality; an extension of time to permit the liquidator to file a cross-appeal was granted because the delay was satisfactorily explained, not inordinate, and granting it would not prejudice the appellants and is in the interests of justice.
15 Jul 2010

APG HOLDINGS (IN LIQUIDATION) V R WILSON HC AK CIV-2010-404-001216

Citation

openlaw-04203912_bfe1_49a7_8137_12b25909aaa3.pdf
Court

High Court

Payments to the defendant within the specified period were dispositions under s298(2); plaintiffs proved the payments and lack of consideration for part of them; defendant failed to establish a credible basis that the payments were salary of her husband or otherwise not recoverable; while the husband's payments to the company could potentially reduce her liability, accounting evidence supported recovery of a net shortfall of $284,659.90; summary judgment was therefore granted for that sum with interest and costs.
29 Jun 2009

BRADBURY V VANCE CA CA719/2008

Citation

openlaw-ac6c2ed9_c284_4a46_a4fe_53c5f932cd6e.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The evidence did not support the appellant's contention that the payments originated from her son or another entity; the payments were company funds made at the behest of a person in control without consideration or company liability, so s 298(2)(b) applied and the liquidator was entitled to summary judgment to recover the payments.
31 Oct 2008

DS VANCE V GN BRADBURY HC WN CIV 2008-485-1237

Citation

openlaw-9bde39c0_9ed1_407c_95e1_91f9a47bed89.pdf
Court

High Court

On the evidence the payments were company property disposed of by Touchtec to the defendant within the specified period, the defendant is a relative of the controller who had control, there is no evidence of consideration provided to the company or a tenable factual defence that the payments were not by the company, and therefore summary judgment under r136 is appropriate to recover $40,000 under s298.

New Zealand Case Law

KLAVENES v GREER [2020] NZCA 215

APG HOLDINGS (IN LIQUIDATION) V R WILSON HC AK CIV-2010-404-001216

BRADBURY V VANCE CA CA719/2008

DS VANCE V GN BRADBURY HC WN CIV 2008-485-1237