New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty of receiver

Legal area

Court

29 Sept 2020

CLAYTON v JACKSON [2020] NZHC 2666

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2666
Court

High Court

The application for an interim injunction was dismissed because Clayton failed to establish any serious question to be tried: the receivers conducted a professional, documented sale process and obtained an effective price not inferior to Clayton's realistic offers; statutory duties did not obligate receivers to give Clayton preferential treatment or a right of first refusal; BNZ's conduct was not shown to be unjust or oppressive in light of the receivers' lawful process; Glass/ Pedersen confidence/fiduciary claims lacked particularised evidence.
25 Jun 2020

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2020] NZHC 1449

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1449
Court

High Court

The Court held that under the Court of Appeal's orders the receivers' primary duty under s18 is to act in Mr Kidd's interests to facilitate WWL realising, as soon as reasonably practicable, sufficient assets to enable payment of USD25,000,000 into Court; s18(2) applies to make Mr Kidd the qualifying person in whose interests the receivers must act, s19's duty to obtain the best price applies only once the decision to sell and timing are made consistent with that primary duty, and the receivers must therefore reconsider their approval of the varied sale agreement and either file substantiated…
3 Dec 2013

RABOBANK NEW ZEALAND LTD v S M CURRIE [2013] NZHC 3215

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3215
Court

High Court

Defendant failed to establish a tenable defence based on receivers' breach of duty because offers achieved were within the independent valuer's assessed market range and there was no evidentiary foundation that further marketing or different sale method would have yielded a higher price; further, the receivers were not agents of Rabobank, and consequently summary judgment was appropriate for Rabobank for the outstanding guaranteed indebtedness with interest and costs.
28 Aug 2012

KING AND ANOR V PFL FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOR COA CA270/2012

Citation

COA CA270/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

The appellants failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried because their factual assertions (oral waiver, lack of notice) were implausible and contradicted contemporaneous documents and witness evidence; service was effectively made and damages were an adequate remedy, so interim injunctive relief to prevent sale was not justified; limited fresh evidence was permitted where genuinely fresh and relevant.

New Zealand Case Law

CLAYTON v JACKSON [2020] NZHC 2666

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2020] NZHC 1449

RABOBANK NEW ZEALAND LTD v S M CURRIE [2013] NZHC 3215

KING AND ANOR V PFL FINANCE LIMITED AND ANOR COA CA270/2012