17 Nov 2022
The summary judgment application was dismissed because the defendant advanced an arguable defence that the $1.5 million loan had been equitably assigned to Ms Yang as part of the March 2020 corporate restructuring; documentary evidence and accounting entries, together with the parties' conduct, were sufficient to raise a real question to be tried and defeat summary judgment.
10 Mar 2021
The Court awarded costs to the successful applicant on a 2B scale but reduced the claimed scale costs by 33% because the decisive equitable assignment argument was raised late and materially changed the applicant's case, causing the respondent to incur unnecessary costs; disbursements of $609 were allowed, yielding a total award of $8,257.
25 Feb 2021
The Court found it reasonably arguable on the affidavit evidence that the $5,750 payment by DRH4 to the respondent was a mistaken overpayment and that the benefit of that payment was equitably assigned or otherwise available to Anysley so as to constitute a reasonably arguable counterclaim/credit; accordingly there was a genuine and substantial dispute as to the debt claimed and the statutory demand must be set aside.
10 Aug 2020
The application was dismissed because the costs order of $43,133 remained an unsatisfied judgment debt; payments by receivers to BNZ covered BNZ's legal invoices but did not discharge the judgment debt; FTG failed to adduce evidence of solvency or a genuine substantial dispute under s290(4)(a) and did not establish other grounds to justify setting aside the demand under s290(4)(c).
10 Aug 2020
FTG did not obtain an effective equitable assignment of CAML's rights under the Priority Deed because clause 15 plainly prohibited transfer of any interest or right in the Secured Party's securities without the other Secured Party's prior approval of the form of the assignee's agreement; that prohibition extended to equitable assignments and prevented FTG acquiring enforceable contractual rights against BNZ. FTG is also disentitled to equitable relief by reason of its deliberate participation in the breach (clean hands). However, insofar as CAML retains proceeds and the Transfer Deed remains…
10 Aug 2020
The Transfer Deed of 15 June 2015 did not effect a valid statutory assignment of the Tuam debts and securities and, as determined in the consolidated -1710 judgment, it also did not effect an equitable assignment; accordingly CAML retains legal and equitable title as second-ranking secured creditor under the Priority Deed, FTG has no entitlement to any receivership surplus, cross-applications are dismissed, and directions/orders follow for distribution priorities and reservation of costs.
13 May 2020
The plaintiff liquidators failed to establish transactions at undervalue under s297: Avanti made advances (drawings) at Fabri-Cell's request and Fabri-Cell received value in the form of those advances and consequent reduction of indebtedness (including payments made on Fabri-Cell's behalf by JSR); the taking of security interests over invoices and the existence of registered security over forklifts did not constitute measurable transfer of monetary value to Avanti for s297 purposes; accordingly no recoverable undervalue arose and the proceeding is dismissed.
13 Oct 2016
The High Court found exceptional circumstances under s64 because Mountain Road is controversial and would preclude Manchester from obtaining appellate review if the cross-appeal remained in the High Court; accordingly the cross-appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal. On the substantive appeal the Tribunal erred: the conditional sale and later assignment did not extinguish the vendor's negligence claim because the conditional price did not cure the vendor's loss and the assignment formed part of the ultimate bargain, so Manchester's appeal was allowed.
30 Aug 2016
The agreements' proper construction did not establish that Shiloh was the equitable owner of the rent debts and Salem's alleged repudiation was not accepted so JRWT remained liable to pay rent up to the point the agreements were cancelled; accordingly leave to appeal was dismissed.
6 Jul 2016
Clause 4 of the Terms of Engagement created a contractual obligation to pay commission when SCLILP received progress payments but did not create a trust, fiduciary duty or equitable assignment over 5.5% of those payments; therefore REC was an unsecured creditor and could not trace or claim proprietary interest in funds received by SCLILP or related companies.