New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Directors' liability

Legal area

Court

3 Aug 2022

WEST END PROPERTY DEVELOPMENTS LTD v PRESCOTT [2022] NZHC 1900

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1900
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion to award costs above scale: 2B plus 25% uplift for steps prior to 3 September 2021 and 2B plus 50% uplift thereafter, because West End unreasonably rejected the Calderbank offer and pursued a meritless claim; the 6 April 2022 letter was not protected by s57 privilege (or alternatively was admissible under the s57(3)(d) exception) and revealed that Mr Mead funded and controlled an insolvent company used to pursue speculative litigation, justifying a non-party costs order against him.
29 Sept 2020

BASSETT-BURR v BPE TRUSTEES (NO. 1) LIMITED [2020] NZCA 457

Citation

(2020) 25 PRNZ 509
Court

Court of Appeal

The non-party costs order was set aside because respondents did not make a formal application on notice to Mr Bassett-Burr and failed to give him proper service and an opportunity to be heard, such that the court lacked jurisdiction and natural justice was breached.
28 Feb 2020

ATTRACTUM LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v CHAPMAN [2020] NZHC 318

Citation

[2020] NZHC 318
Court

High Court

The company was insolvent (balance‑sheet from FYE 2011, cashflow from Sept 2012); the Chapmans, as controlling directors and shareholders, diverted company revenue and retained the vehicle as a company asset; accordingly the liquidators proved entitlement to recover the Chapmans' current account debt of $44,915 and to clawback distributions/dispositions of $333,605; declarations of breaches of ss131, 135, 136 and 137 were warranted; no additional monetary contribution was ordered under the directors' duty claim beyond the judgments entered; costs awarded to plaintiffs on a 2B basis.
18 Sept 2015

ARCHITECTURE & PROJECT MANAGEMENT LTD v WINDOWMAKERS LTD [2015] NZHC 2268

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2268
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge's costs decision arose from an interlocutory application properly heard in chambers by an Associate Judge and was therefore amenable to review under s 26P(1); leave to bring the review out of time was granted; on the merits the Associate Judge applied the wrong principle and lacked adequate evidential basis to find the director was the real party entitled to a costs order, so the costs order was set aside.
19 Feb 2013

RABSON v CROAD SC 85/2012

Citation

SC 85/2012
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal is refused because the applicant failed to establish prima facie apparent bias or provide evidence connecting alleged procedural irregularities to a risk of non‑impartial decision, and because the Court of Appeal correctly held that the formal proof in the High Court satisfied the s 301 inquiry requirement and there was no question of general or public importance.
15 Aug 2012

JULL V LITTLE & ORS COA CA704/2011

Citation

COA CA704/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

Rule 12.2(2) must be read as applying to each plaintiff's individual statement of claim so a defendant is entitled to judgment against any plaintiff whose pleaded causes of action cannot succeed; however, on the interpretation of s37(6) the Court declined to decide the novel issue on summary judgment because respondents should be permitted to amend pleadings and factual issues (including when a person 'occupies the position of a director' and the s37(6) proviso) require trial, so summary judgment was refused.
1 Dec 2011

MCDONALD V WILLIAMS HC AK CIV 2011-404-004420

Citation

openlaw-2ad9296c_cfbd_4de2_84c2_9846e626b6d1.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the presumption under r12.20.5 applies: Mr McDonald's discontinuance against Williams was justifiedly met with costs since Williams had no personal involvement and the claim against him was misconceived; the District Court's award of 2B costs plus a 40% uplift was a proper exercise of discretion and on appeal increased costs of 25% above 2B are appropriate given the Calderbank offer.
15 Sept 2011

STEIGRAD & ORS V BFSL 2007 LTD & ORS HC AK CIV-2011-404-611

Citation

openlaw-697e9c7a_1814_4ebd_8a4d_93d36586fa23.pdf
Court

High Court

The s 9 statutory charge on insurance moneys prevents the directors from accessing the D & O policy to meet defence costs because s 9 charges all insurance money that is or may become payable in respect of liability to pay damages or compensation; payments by QBE for defence costs with notice would deplete the pool available to civil claimants and thereby frustrate the statutory charge, so QBE must preserve the fund for claimants until liability and entitlement to cover are established.
1 Jun 2011

LOKTRONIC INDUSTRIES LIMITED V DIVER HC AK CIV-2008-404-4657

Citation

openlaw-afb7300e_3db5_44f8_a6a6_20bf535a2f4b.pdf
Court

High Court

A stay of execution pending appeal was granted provided the applicants furnish a bank bond in favour of the Court for the full judgment sum (including interest to date of judgment) within 15 working days; this preserves Loktronic's entitlement while protecting appellants' ability to obtain effective relief if appeals succeed.
14 Dec 2010

HALL V ROBINSON AND ANOR HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-001378

Citation

openlaw-94c06cfa_3b2e_4cb5_9596_d3983caf5f95.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there are genuine contested factual issues (including whether the second defendant received funds or signed the acknowledgement under pressure) that require cross‑examination and because the 13 August acknowledgement does not conclusively estop the second defendant or itself create a cause of action linking her to the advances.