New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Distribution of surplus

Legal area

Court

6 Aug 2021

LOTT and KOLLAT v TUATAPERE SALEYARDS CO LTD (In Liquidation) [2021] NZHC 1995

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1995
Court

High Court

Given that all creditors had been paid, the share register was substantially out of date, the cost of tracing shareholders would exhaust the modest surplus, and located shareholders and the liquidator supported distribution to community organisations, it was just and equitable under s 250(1) to terminate the liquidation so directors could distribute the funds to the community; leave was reserved to return the company to liquidation after distribution.
10 Jul 2018

C A L GOWER and Anor v FTG SECURITIES LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1610

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1610
Court

High Court

The Court held parts of the liquidator's Notice of Appearance that sought substantive, wide-ranging claims (paras 9(b)–(e)) were not ancillary, were an abuse of process and were struck out; the limited claim that the surplus remaining after BNZ's priority should be held for TVL (para 9(a)) was legitimately ancillary and not struck out; FTG's application for security for costs against the liquidator was dismissed; the proceeding was stayed for 10 working days to allow the liquidator to commence specific proceedings and seek consolidation; costs to lie where they fall.
11 Mar 2011

MCAULAY V HAWKES BAY WIND MACHINES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC NAP CIV-2007-441-916

Citation

openlaw-a24f3810_2748_4731_837a_ea72466a98f6.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to be heard was granted to the directors but on the merits the Court held the liquidator's overall remuneration was reasonable in the circumstances, the interim approval could be reviewed but no reduction was warranted, and the directors failed to establish misconduct or error of a kind justifying repayment or reversal of the warranty settlement; accordingly the liquidator's application to fix remuneration was granted and the directors' applications dismissed.
1 Nov 2010

NAPIER CITY COUNCIL HC NAP CIV 2010-441-524

Citation

openlaw-83517cff_6732_4f1c_8e35_0f5ee0197e40.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 20 does not prohibit an incorporated society from owning controlling shares in a company that operates for pecuniary gain provided the society's core purposes are not for pecuniary gain and any pecuniary gain received by the society is not divisible among or distributed to its members; ownership via a separate company does not amount to the society itself engaging in prohibited commercial activity.
10 Sept 2010

RE HIH CASUALTY & GENERAL INSURANCE LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND FAI (NZ) GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2009-404-003637

Citation

openlaw-3d82edd5_5664_4a41_a706_eb5375b05212.pdf
Court

High Court

Court granted directions under s284 permitting the liquidators to give specified notice, fix 1 March 2011 as the final date for creditor claims, provisionally estimate contingent and unliquidated claims subject to a specified review and appeal process, confirm valuation of policies assumed under portfolio assumption at zero, require creation of a $2,500,000 trust to meet Weathertight Homes Act claimants filed after 1 March 2011 up to 1 March 2013, and thereafter permit distributions and termination of the liquidations.
26 Jul 2006

WALLER & ANOR AS LIQUIDATORS OF KIWI INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2005-404-7051

Citation

openlaw-f20acf74_c7cd_42e1_a8c6_664f01aa8821.pdf
Court

High Court

Where the cost, practical difficulty and likely outcome of undertaking the full proof of debt and distribution process would be unreasonable and inefficient and would defeat the purpose of distribution (by exhausting or substantially reducing the fund), the Court may, under its s 284 powers, direct that the net surplus (after liquidators' costs) be paid into the Crown Liquidation Surplus Account and dispense with statutory procedural requirements, thereby completing or terminating the liquidation and releasing the liquidators from further administration.
22 Dec 2005

AGNEW AND WALLER AND ANOR V PARDINGTON AND JARROLD AND ANOR CA CA109/05

Citation

openlaw-147cc014_c081_4313_910f_395c27888837.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Section 30A should be interpreted as limited to ensuring that purchasers take clear title and that subordinate security interests are extinguished only insofar as they affect the purchaser's rights in future proceeds in the purchaser's hands; it does not extinguish subordinate secured creditors' entitlement to priority in any surplus held or realised by the receiver, so subordinate secured creditors retain priority to such surplus; High Court order holding otherwise was set aside.

New Zealand Case Law

LOTT and KOLLAT v TUATAPERE SALEYARDS CO LTD (In Liquidation) [2021] NZHC 1995

C A L GOWER and Anor v FTG SECURITIES LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1610

MCAULAY V HAWKES BAY WIND MACHINES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC NAP CIV-2007-441-916

NAPIER CITY COUNCIL HC NAP CIV 2010-441-524

RE HIH CASUALTY & GENERAL INSURANCE LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND FAI (NZ) GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2009-404-003637

WALLER & ANOR AS LIQUIDATORS OF KIWI INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2005-404-7051

AGNEW AND WALLER AND ANOR V PARDINGTON AND JARROLD AND ANOR CA CA109/05