New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Creditor enforcement

Legal area

Court

9 Aug 2021

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v THE TRAVEL DOCTOR – AUCKLAND LTD, CHRISTCHURCH LTD and TMVC WELLINGTON LTD [2021] NZHC 2050

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2050
Court

High Court

The Commissioner established that the companies owed unpaid tax debts and had not complied with statutory demands, there was no filed opposition or evidence of a genuine dispute about indebtedness, and the allegations raised by the director concerned personal disputes outside the scope of this proceeding; accordingly the court ordered the companies into liquidation, appointed liquidators and approved their remuneration and individual exercise of powers.
11 Jun 2021

WHITE ISLAND TOURS LTD v WISLANG [2021] NZHC 1386

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1386
Court

High Court

The court found the s13 jurisdictional requirements were satisfied (debt of $62,240.50, act of bankruptcy, certainty and payable), there was no operative appeal or stay under s42, the debtor failed to demonstrate ability to pay or any compelling reason under s37 to refuse adjudication, and adjudication was necessary to permit investigation and protect creditor and public interests; accordingly an adjudication order was made.
21 Dec 2020

WANG v LU [2020] NZCA 673

Citation

[2020] NZCA 673
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was allowed because, absent the Court's concerns about service, the oral amendment to include an express order for Part 6 administration should have been permitted; statutory scheme shows Part 6 requires a decision whether to administer an estate under Part 6 and separately who should be appointed, and where no administrator exists service will ordinarily be on the person named by the testator (eg appointed executor), with unnamed creditors or beneficiaries not necessarily prejudiced by the grant of Part 6 administration.
23 Mar 2018

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v STEPHENS [2018] NZHC 519

Citation

[2018] NZHC 519
Court

High Court

The Court found all s13 and s17 jurisdictional facts established; given the debtor's prolonged and significant tax non-compliance, ongoing defaults, credible evidence suggesting possible property interests and sale proceeds, and the statutory and public interest in tax collection and accountability, the discretion under s37 was exercised to adjudicate. Personal, cultural and career harms did not outweigh the public interest and the need for Official Assignee investigation and accountability.
4 Feb 2014

TRENDS PUBLISHING INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v DALGETY FINANCE GROUP LIMITED [2014] NZHC 55

Citation

[2014] NZHC 55
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to establish a credible and substantial dispute: the signed mandate governed, contemporaneous documents and conduct show only cessation of the weekly retainer after the fifth week not termination or substitution of the fixed brokerage arrangement, alleged pre-contractual representations that brokerage covered bank fees were not credible or carried through into the written agreement, and interest and costs claimed fall within the mandate; therefore the statutory demand stood and the application to set it aside was dismissed.
4 Oct 2013

MCCREADY v GREEN CABS [2013] NZHC 2594

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2594
Court

High Court

Adjudication was ordered because the debtor's proposal was speculative, lacked reliable evidence of lump sums or increased income, would deliver only a modest return (circa 24 cents in the dollar) and therefore it was not just and equitable to refuse adjudication under s37.
12 Jul 2011

LEWIS V THE MORTGAGE HOLDING TRUST COMPANY LIMITED HC AK CIV-2009-404-8103

Citation

openlaw-541cd729_683c_4420_a247_b3ddfb3dc495.pdf
Court

High Court

The court ordered that the applicant and the trustee are jointly and severally liable to pay the costs claimed: $3,800.89 to Vero Insurance Limited and $3,424.89 to the Inland Revenue Department, as quantified in their filed schedules.
21 Nov 2006

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V LAMBTON MAGAZINES (1988) LIMITED HC WN CIV-2006-485-1207

Citation

openlaw-f35d1410_b1d1_4166_a381_dfaf6bba0b50.pdf
Court

High Court

The court ordered liquidation because the defendant was unable to pay its debts, no application was made to set aside the statutory demand, the directors conceded the company could not continue, and the plaintiff's debt ($113,089.41) remained unpaid; liquidators were appointed, remuneration approved subject to s284, and costs awarded to the plaintiff and supporting creditor Toops while Netlink was denied costs for filing out of time.