New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Stay of winding-up proceedings

Legal area

Court

17 Aug 2021

SKYHORSE TRANSPORT LTD v GREENHILL HOME LTD [2021] NZHC 2182

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2182
Court

High Court

Greenhill established a prima facie genuine dispute on substantial grounds supported by contemporaneous excavation plans and tip dockets, deposited the disputed funds in its solicitor's trust account, and proposed prompt expert resolution; accordingly the Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to stay proceedings and restrain advertising on conditions that the funds remain in trust and the parties promptly resolve the dispute.
2 May 2018

LOOKMAN & 187 BRIDGE TRUSTEES 53 LTD as Trustees of the LOOKMAN FAMILY TRUST v DESIGN ELECTRONICS LTD [2018] NZHC 904

Citation

[2018] NZHC 904
Court

High Court

Design Electronics established an arguable and substantial dispute that the advances were not repayable on demand under the Investment and Shareholding Agreement and, given the balance of convenience, the High Court stayed the winding-up proceeding pending determination of that dispute; issues of contractual meaning (including the five year term, conversion option and "reimbursement model") require further evidence and possibly trial.
15 Sept 2016

JELLIE v TANNENBERG LTD [2016] NZHC 2187

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2187
Court

High Court

Because there was a genuine and substantial dispute as to the underlying debt and unresolved contested issues as to service, and because allowing the liquidation proceedings to continue would be unfair and impose undue pressure on the company, the Court exercised its discretion under r 31.11 to order a permanent stay of the liquidation proceedings.
30 Nov 2007

SAITEYSMCMAHON PROPERTY LIMITED V MORNING STAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED HC AK CIV 2007-404-006632

Citation

openlaw-226d055b_5e68_4b2b_a32e_393c50e645d2.pdf
Court

High Court

Morning Star failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie defence or clear and persuasive grounds to dispute the judgment debt; it admitted inability to pay and provided insufficient evidence of imminent means to satisfy the debt, therefore a stay and restraint of advertising were refused and the liquidation application may proceed.

New Zealand Case Law

SKYHORSE TRANSPORT LTD v GREENHILL HOME LTD [2021] NZHC 2182

LOOKMAN & 187 BRIDGE TRUSTEES 53 LTD as Trustees of the LOOKMAN FAMILY TRUST v DESIGN ELECTRONICS LTD [2018] NZHC 904

JELLIE v TANNENBERG LTD [2016] NZHC 2187

SAITEYSMCMAHON PROPERTY LIMITED V MORNING STAR ENTERPRISES LIMITED HC AK CIV 2007-404-006632