New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Director residency requirement

Legal area

Court

15 Mar 2023

LOCK v THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2023] NZHC 509

Citation

[2023] NZHC 509
Court

High Court

Because the company owned a block of land at the time of removal, a proper reason existed for its continued existence and it was just and equitable to restore it so the executor could administer the estate; however restoration must be conditional and lie in Court until a New Zealand resident director has consented and the necessary appointment papers will be filed to avoid breach of s 10(d)(i).
3 Mar 2020

FIRST NZ PROPERTIES LIMITED v Registrar of Companies and Barnes [2020] NZHC 359

Citation

[2020] NZHC 359
Court

High Court

The court restored Inlandia Ltd because the applicants had an undischarged creditor claim arising from the company's receipt of misappropriated funds, giving them standing under s329; the opposition lacked a legitimate interest sufficient to defeat restoration and the sole director's non‑residence did not justify denying restoration. The restoration is ordered subject to the procedural requirement of notifying the Secretary of the Treasury.
7 Jul 2016

CARR [2016] NZHC 1536

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1536
Court

High Court

Applying a purposive interpretation that emphasises enforceability and overall connection to New Zealand, the Court held that Mr Carr lives in New Zealand for the purposes of s 10(d) because his significant physical presence (about one third of the year) combined with strong personal and professional ties and the ability to be questioned and enforced against satisfied the statutory test; the 183 day threshold is a permissible administrative sifting mechanism but not definitive.

New Zealand Case Law

LOCK v THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2023] NZHC 509

FIRST NZ PROPERTIES LIMITED v Registrar of Companies and Barnes [2020] NZHC 359

CARR [2016] NZHC 1536