New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidation application

Legal area

Court

14 Jun 2023

METALWORKS NZ LIMITED v HAWTHORNDALE ESTATE LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1487

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1487
Court

High Court

Because the liquidation application was publicly advertised and the advertisement put the statement of claim and verifying affidavit into the public domain, those documents carry a public element that justifies access despite the proceeding being discontinued; however, access is limited to those documents and conditional on disclosure making clear the application was resolved and discontinued and that no other creditors appeared, to protect fairness and accuracy of reporting.
20 Sept 2022

DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION LTD v MACKENZIE [2022] NZHC 2400

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2400
Court

High Court

DCL was entitled to costs on a category 2B basis for filing the set-aside application because it had a valid counterclaim exceeding the demand when it filed; Mr Mackenzie must pay costs for steps taken after he paid the Tribunal award on 10 August 2022; costs of the aborted liquidation filing are to lie where they fall.
23 Apr 2018

Re FORESTLANDS (No.2) Limited [2018] NZHC 754

Citation

[2018] NZHC 754
Court

High Court

The Court authorised payment of the assessed income tax and interest from the solicitors' trust account because the accountant's affidavit established that each tax‑paying company had substantial net assets and could pay its debts as they fall due, there was no evidence of insolvency or that payment would improperly prefer the IRD, the penalties to be avoided were substantial and prejudicial to shareholders, and the FMA did not oppose the order (abiding the Court's decision).
22 Feb 2018

EASTLIGHT ASSET TRADING NO.3 LIMITED v JAAFAR HOLDINGS LIMITED [2018] NZHC 221

Citation

[2018] NZHC 221
Court

High Court

The application for liquidation was not a proper case for increased costs because it was filed due to the defendant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of solvency and the central inquiry remained whether the debt was owing; accordingly the plaintiff must pay the defendant's costs on a 2B scale plus disbursements and no credit or refund is payable.
11 Aug 2016

ZHOU v LU & ORS [2016] NZHC 1865

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1865
Court

High Court

The court granted interim interim relief to protect the company's ongoing business by ordering limited payment-authorisation and management arrangements: Ms Lu must authorise payments under specified verification safeguards; Mr Chan is restrained from management activities, accessing premises and contacting staff/customers/suppliers; Mr Zhao is responsible for day-to-day management; and Mr Zhao and Ms Lu must exercise board powers jointly—these orders were justified under ss164 and 170 to preserve the integrity and continuity of the company pending the interim injunction hearing.
11 Sept 2015

AAI LIMITED v 92 LICHFIELD STREET (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZHC 2190

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2190
Court

High Court

The Court stayed enforcement of the judgment only to the extent of the disputed amount ($1,873,000) and required immediate payment of the insurer's assessed indemnity value ($4,627,000) within five working days with the balance of the judgment and costs ($1,873,000 and $9,314) to be held in the applicant's solicitor trust account in joint names pending appeal; liquidation proceedings and advertising were stayed pending determination of the appeal because indemnity value is payable under the policy and releasing the full judgment to an insolvent respondent would render appeal rights nugatory a…
19 Feb 2015

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v TUSCANY PROPERTIES LIMITED [2015] NZHC 184

Citation

[2015] NZHC 184
Court

High Court

The application for liquidation was dismissed because there existed genuine and material disputes of fact about whether a binding agreement or enforceable representations were made at the January meeting and about the circumstances of the mortgagee sale; those disputes required fuller factual inquiry (oral evidence) and therefore the court would not make a liquidation order on the present record.
28 Jun 2012

ARCHITECTURAL ALUMINIUM INSTALLATION LIMITED V ASPEN PROJECTS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2012-404-2662

Citation

openlaw-b6be98e6_578e_4f17_a654_3ec2c789be62.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found there was no genuine dispute over the $1,283.09 extra because documentary evidence (quotes and exhibits) established it was a properly quoted extra; the defendant paid the debt at hearing; therefore the liquidation application was dismissed and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
1 May 2012

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V WIRE BY DESIGN LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-004468

Citation

openlaw-962563d2_c9df_4474_b6a5_525951a9fbc4.pdf
Court

High Court

WBD was insolvent and there was no defence to the liquidation applications; the Court refused to appoint the proposed PwC liquidators because their continuing business relationships with related entities and secured creditors gave rise to a real risk to, and an appearance of lack of, independence under s280(1)(cb) of the Companies Act 1993; accordingly the Court declined their appointment and adjourned to make the liquidation order while allowing the Commissioner to nominate an alternative or obtain consents.
31 May 2010

INDUSTRIAL GROUP LTD V J D BAKKER AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2009-404-006432

Citation

openlaw-6065c4b3_a18c_41bd_9358_26b81ab47db2.pdf
Court

High Court

The balance of convenience favoured granting interim relief: the appeal was bona fide and would be rendered nugatory if liquidation proceeded, the company and its subsidiaries would suffer greater hardship (including risk to employees) than the respondents from a stay, and conditions could mitigate respondent prejudice; accordingly the court restrained the creditors from filing liquidation proceedings or enforcing the payment orders pending further order or determination by the Court of Appeal, subject to conditions including interest if the appeal fails and timetable requirements for prosecu…