29 Jul 2022
The court found the registered owner held the land on trust for the Association, no adverse interests opposed the transfer, and the High Court has inherent jurisdiction equivalent to historic statutory vesting powers to order transfer; accordingly it was just and equitable to transfer the title to the Association and the court ordered transfer.
24 Nov 2021
The company was restored because it had a proper reason to continue in existence when removed (to permit discharge of a mortgage) and restoration was just and equitable given there were no creditors, no objection from respondents and refusal would cause unnecessary loss and delay.
7 Dec 2020
Given the applicant was the sole director and shareholder, the company had arguable non‑vexatious claims supported by a Law Society decision and independent legal opinion, there was an adequate explanation for delay and potential limitation urgency, and the company was solvent when removed, it was just and equitable to restore the company to the register and to dispense with service.
12 Jul 2019
The Court held the assets transfer caused unfair prejudice but affirmed the High Court's acceptance of the respondents' valuation evidence (independent forensic accountant Martin) that INZ's value in July 2008 was low (NZD 88,850) and Tyrion's share value NZD 44,425; the Court agreed it would not be just and equitable to award compensation given factors including Blomfield's misconduct and Tyrion's knowledge of INZ's precarious finances; further evidence was refused; the indemnity costs order was excessive and was replaced with a 50% uplift on scale 2B for steps after 7 February 2018; appeal…
11 Dec 2012
The Court concluded it was just and equitable to overturn the Body Corporate's special resolution to apply for cancellation with the s177(7) reassessment and instead exercise the High Court's power to cancel the unit plan while preserving the 2007 ownership interests because the reassessment was not justified by reliable market valuation evidence or an appropriate effective date in the post-earthquake context and would cause significant unconscionable detriment to applicants.
20 Aug 2007
The liquidator was put on enquiry by correspondence from plaintiffs' counsel and, given the similarity of company names and common directorship, had a duty to make basic enquiries; failure to do so before filing a final report rendered removal from the Register unjust and equitable grounds existed to restore the company, revoke the final report and appoint new liquidators.
4 Sept 2006
Court found the exclusion of the plaintiff from management and removal as director coupled with the absence of a reasonable offer to purchase his shares amounted to oppression/unfair prejudice under s174; PwC's minority discount was inappropriate in context; therefore it was just and equitable to order Chabro Holdings Ltd to purchase plaintiff's 10% holding at a fair value of NZD 880,000.