New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Access to company records

Legal area

Court

30 Nov 2023

TOBEM HOLDINGS LIMITED v GRANT [2023] NZHC 3473

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3473
Court

High Court

Given Tobem's overwhelming creditor position, its willingness to fund investigations, the liquidators' stated lack of funds, and concrete indicia of suspicion (removal of two wholly owned subsidiaries after proceedings were filed and public information suggesting continued operation), there was a 'good reason' under s256(1)(a)(ii) to require inspection of KC Holdings' records subject to protections for privilege, confidentiality, documents outside liquidators' control and exclusion of remuneration documents; costs for production to be borne by Tobem.
25 May 2023

CARTER v CANTERBURY DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1249

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1249
Court

High Court

Because the defendants filed express admissions conceding the claim for issuance of 500 ordinary shares and the appointment of the first plaintiff as director, the court entered orders in respect of those heads; the claim for repayment of $50,000 was dismissed because the plaintiffs abandoned it and costs liability was acknowledged but entitlement to indemnity costs was reserved for determination on submissions.
31 Mar 2022

YOUNG v REMARKABLE EXQUISITE DESIGN LIMITED [2022] NZHC 635

Citation

[2022] NZHC 635
Court

High Court

The court ordered liquidation because the parties' relationship had irretrievably broken down producing a serious deadlock that materially frustrated the company's affairs, there were no realistic alternatives or acceptable buyout proposals addressing the applicant's unresolved allegations of diverted income and misuse of company funds, and an independent liquidator was required to investigate and resolve those matters.
30 Jul 2010

R K RAI V G D CHAPMAN HC AK CIV-2010-404-002300

Citation

openlaw-748d36cf_8c39_4ed9_93f3_fc304d0f2b3a.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to bring the application was warranted; the Court fixed retrospective remuneration at $25,000 plus GST (comprising a $15,000 base fee and $10,000 uplift) for work up to 3 May 2010 because the liquidator's time records were insufficiently particular, he accepted an unnecessary role prior to asset realisation which created extra work for which he is personally responsible in part, and assistant rates were excessive; the Court ordered meetings and access to records but declined to remove or prohibit the liquidator absent disqualification or prior s 286 orders.

New Zealand Case Law

TOBEM HOLDINGS LIMITED v GRANT [2023] NZHC 3473

CARTER v CANTERBURY DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1249

YOUNG v REMARKABLE EXQUISITE DESIGN LIMITED [2022] NZHC 635

R K RAI V G D CHAPMAN HC AK CIV-2010-404-002300