New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sham transactions

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2023

GENERAL FINANCE LIMITED v LAU [2023] NZHC 3417

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3417
Court

High Court

The residential tenancy agreement is invalid and void because it is a contrived, uncertified and uncorroborated document that emerged only after GFL's enforcement steps, is internally inconsistent and uncertain, is founded on a Separation Agreement that fails statutory formalities (s21A Property (Relationships) Act 1976) and likely breaches trustee duties, and therefore cannot be recognised as creating a valid proprietary tenancy interest.
11 Oct 2023

IBUY PROPERTY LIMITED v HE [2023] NZHC 2847

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2847
Court

High Court

On the material before the court the 20 February 2020 lease was a sham and not a valid interest; IBuy did not acquire title through fraud because it had no actual knowledge or wilful blindness to a genuine unregistered lease and clause 14 does not operate as a contractual promise binding a purchaser to unregistered unknown tenancies; no in personam remedy arose; summary judgment for possession for IBuy was appropriate.
13 Apr 2022

CLARK v CLARK [2022] NZHC 786

Citation

[2022] NZHC 786
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiff's sole claim is founded on loan agreements signed after the advances; material factual issues exist as to whether those agreements reflect the parties' contemporaneous intention, and there is credible evidence raising real doubt (possible sham, duress, misleading affidavit evidence, unworkable terms and lack of implementation) such that the defendant has a tenable defence and a full hearing is required.
21 Dec 2021

WU v CHIU [2021] NZHC 3577

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3577
Court

High Court

On the rehearing the Court upheld the Family Court's classification of the Kiltole Drive properties as relationship property because the cumulative evidence supported that the appellant controlled the accounts, treated the funds as his own and used sale proceeds for personal indebtedness; however the Court allowed the appeal in relation to the two $100,000 deposits, quashing the order requiring reimbursement because there was insufficient evidence to displace the appellant's account that the funds were repayment to a third party (Jun Luo).
10 Sept 2018

ROBT. JONES HOLDINGS LIMITED v MCCULLAGH [2018] NZCA 358

Citation

[2002] NZCCLR 6
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the High Court was correct to find the Columbus and MSH No 2 payments were transactions of Northern Crest (either a redirection of licence fees or loans for Northern Crest's benefit), those transactions were insolvent transactions under s 292 because Northern Crest was unable to pay its debts and the creditors received more than they would in liquidation, the November 2009 licence was not a sham on the evidence, the MYOB and contemporaneous records were admissible and probative, the ultimate effect rule (requiring overall diminution of the assets pool…
6 Sept 2016

RUSSMORR LTD v BODY CORPORATE 345866 [2016] NZCA 418

Citation

[2016] NZCA 418
Court

Court of Appeal

Rules 2.1(f) and 2.1(g) imposing a mandatory obligation to provide and pay for an on-site manager's unit, and rule 2.2(k) empowering guarantees of such obligations, are ultra vires s 37(5) of the Unit Titles Act 1972 because they appreciably expand the body corporate's duties beyond what is incidental to its statutory powers; estoppel cannot validate an unlawful provision; accordingly the Russmorr guarantee is invalid.
31 Aug 2010

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED AND ORS CA607/2008

Citation

openlaw-711be257_bcec_4603_9ee5_08555748e8f5.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held the Commissioner was bound by aspects of the unappealed first High Court judgment; parts of the Budhia reconsideration were set aside for failing to give effect to those directions (notably remediation of penalties and respecting in‑substance arrangements), but the re-registration of Anolbe as decided by the Commissioner was reinstated; Anolbe sham issues should be pursued by statutory challenge rather than judicial review; the Commissioner must reconsider remission and set‑off consistent with the High Court directions and may use ss6 and 6A where ss182/183A do not su…
25 Nov 2008

CHESTERFIELD PRESCHOOLS LTD AND ORS V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC CHCH CIV-2008-409-000722

Citation

openlaw-3ac059df_324a_4a89_a6bf_7cd828990ba6.pdf
Court

High Court

The court set aside Mr Budhia's decision because he erred in law by failing to apply the sham test properly, by not giving sufficient regard to the December judgment's reasons (in particular paragraph [155] and direction [159]), by misinterpreting the scope of remissions under s 182 and s 183A and by failing to consider ss 6/6A in light of the Court's directions; the Commissioner is ordered to reconsider in accordance with the December judgment and this judgment, stay of debt collection remains, sham issues to be litigated in High Court if not settled within one month, and Aronsen notes are a…
14 Apr 2008

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION LTD V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE AND ORS SC 66/2007

Citation

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION LTD V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE AND ORS SC 66/2007
Court

Supreme Court

Section 81(1) permits the Commissioner to discover and use documents relating to non‑party taxpayers where doing so is reasonably necessary for carrying into effect the Inland Revenue Acts; s81 provides the comprehensive statutory framework reconciling tax secrecy and the interests of justice, and public interest immunity need not be invoked separately; courts may review and require editing or redaction where disclosure is not reasonably necessary.
10 May 2006

SHEN V MANAGH, LIQUIDATOR OF ZEST BISTRO LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC WN CIV-2004-485-858

Citation

openlaw-684a180c_bb4b_469c_9f25_614ebbddd75a.pdf
Court

High Court

The payment of $138,000 was made within the specified period when Zest Bistro was insolvent, was not made in the ordinary course of business, and resulted in a preference to the plaintiff; the plaintiff failed to prove good faith or alteration of position under s296(3), so the payment is voidable and must be repaid with interest and costs.