New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Voidable transactions (s292)

Legal area

Court

9 Mar 2020

SHEPHARD & KELLOW v WAKEFIELD PLANT LTD [2020] NZHC 439

Citation

[2020] NZHC 439
Court

High Court

The Court concluded that the challenged payments were, in substance, repayments that reduced the group's secured indebtedness to BNZ and therefore did not result in WPL receiving more in liquidation; alternatively the payments formed part of a continuing business relationship (a running account) between ECL, WPL and BNZ under s292(4B); additionally WPL satisfied the s296 alteration of position defence, so the liquidators' application to set aside the transactions failed.
15 Mar 2018

DEBUT HOMES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v COOPER [2018] NZHC 453

Citation

(2018) 12 NZCLC98
Court

High Court

The judge found that from after 31 October 2012 the director knew or ought to have known Debut could not meet GST and other debts as they fell due; consequently he breached s136 by incurring obligations without reasonable grounds, breached s131 by preferring his and related parties' interests and failing to consider creditors, and breached s135 by carrying on business creating substantial risk of serious loss to creditors. The s138 reliance defence failed as advice relied upon was vague and did not meet statutory conditions. Under s301 the director was ordered to contribute a just sum ($280,0…
1 Aug 2011

GRANT BRUCE REYNOLDS AS LIQUIDATOR OF CHAFFERS PROPERTIES LIMITED AND WARKWORTH GRANGE PROPERTY INVESTMENT LIMITED (BOTH IN LIQUIDATION) V GLAISTER ENNOR HC AK CIV 2011-404-001380

Citation

openlaw-0d0d8b17_54ce_4bcf_9225_169f22716890.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found the evidence established the payments were made by the Trustee pursuant to an irrevocable authority and there was no contemporaneous evidence that the Trustee advanced funds to the companies or that the transactions were loans or payments on behalf of the companies; therefore the transfers were not "transactions by the companies" under s292 and the application to set them aside was dismissed.
13 Jul 2009

RE/MAX NEW ZEALAND LTD V ONE TREE HILL REALTY LTD HC AK CIV 2009-404-001057

Citation

openlaw-f48ce121_b09f_4e4a_9a8b_a743858f5eee.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendant failed to establish a genuine and substantial dispute about liability or amount and did not prove solvency; the Real Estate Agents Act argument failed because the relevant licensing provision was not in force for the period in question and the franchisor did not carry out agency work itself; therefore the s 287 presumption of inability to pay stands and the winding‑up application should proceed (hearing for formal liquidation orders set down).
27 Nov 2008

IH WEDDING & SONS LIMITED AND ANOR V BUY-SELL REALTY NZ LIMITED HC AK CIV 2008-404-5502

Citation

openlaw-057d7941_3b70_4691_b57d_3a3bca568fb9.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to continue the appeal was granted because the appellants' case was not unsustainable, there was no undue delay, the appellants offered to fund enquiries that could lead to recovery (so the litigation was not necessarily fruitless), the s302 alternative was inappropriate, and considerations of creditor equality and alleged advantage were insufficient to deny leave.

New Zealand Case Law

SHEPHARD & KELLOW v WAKEFIELD PLANT LTD [2020] NZHC 439

DEBUT HOMES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v COOPER [2018] NZHC 453

GRANT BRUCE REYNOLDS AS LIQUIDATOR OF CHAFFERS PROPERTIES LIMITED AND WARKWORTH GRANGE PROPERTY INVESTMENT LIMITED (BOTH IN LIQUIDATION) V GLAISTER ENNOR HC AK CIV 2011-404-001380

RE/MAX NEW ZEALAND LTD V ONE TREE HILL REALTY LTD HC AK CIV 2009-404-001057

IH WEDDING & SONS LIMITED AND ANOR V BUY-SELL REALTY NZ LIMITED HC AK CIV 2008-404-5502