New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidator decision review

Legal area

Court

16 Feb 2023

FUGLE v VANCE [2023] NZCA 21

Citation

[2023] NZCA 21
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because the applicant failed to identify an arguable error of law or fact of sufficient importance; the High Court correctly treated the s284 application as interlocutory, properly applied the applicable legal tests (including distinctions between legal questions and reasonableness of liquidators' decisions), and reasonably concluded the liquidators' characterisation of the Trust's payments as a debt was not statute-barred and was open on the evidence; granting leave would cause unjustified delay and prejudice creditors.
29 Jul 2022

VANCE v VEY GROUP LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1861

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1861
Court

High Court

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the High Court correctly applied the law and facts: the liquidators reasonably concluded the Orana debt comprised a shareholder current account (and a $200,000 advance) repayable on demand and therefore not statute-barred; the court-appointed receiver/liquidator's evidence was admissible and appropriate; no arguable error of law or fact warranting leave was demonstrated; and granting leave would cause unjustified delay and prejudice to creditors and the liquidation process.
2 Feb 2022

VANCE v VEY GROUP LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND RECEIVERSHIP) [2022] NZHC 75

Citation

[2022] NZHC 75
Court

High Court

The liquidators conducted a reasonable, documented review and properly treated the intermingled transactions as a shareholder current account (except the 2015 term loan); under the applicable authorities a current account of this nature gives rise to liability on demand so pre-2011 components were not statute-barred; accordingly the liquidators' admission of Orana's claim was not unreasonable and the review application is dismissed; the termination application is discontinued and the agreed share transfer is approved under s248.
31 Aug 2020

ENVIRO DYNAMICS CIVIL LTD v ASSURED CONTRACTING LTD (In Liquidation) [2020] NZHC 2247

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2247
Court

High Court

The application for leave was refused because the appeal is not sustainable under s50(1) (it principally challenges merits rather than alleging procedural unfairness), the applicant unreasonably delayed making the application causing prejudice and unnecessary costs, and granting leave would unfairly prejudice other creditors; the alternative s284 application failed for lack of standing and because s248 was the appropriate mechanism.
19 Feb 2020

DAVID EDWARD THOMAS v IAN ALLEN THOMPSON [2020] NZSC 7

Citation

[2020] NZSC 7
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the case is fact‑specific, raised no point of public importance, existing authority and the correct standard had been applied by lower courts, the absence of legal advice was only a relevant factor in assessing consideration given, and no substantial miscarriage of justice would result; costs of $2,500 awarded to respondent.
20 Apr 2017

ADAPTABLE SOLUTIONS LTD v TOON [2017] NZHC 753

Citation

[2017] NZHC 753
Court

High Court

Leave under s 284(1) was granted because the applicant established an arguable case: the relevant contractual provisions are sufficiently ambiguous on whether Earn-out Payments include DF and ZAP and whether the 'work-around' revenue was earned by Koorb; the court could not conclusively determine these issues on interlocutory material and there is a reasonable prospect that, if proved, the court would disturb the liquidator's decision.
11 Aug 2014

WEST v GRANT [2014] NZHC 1880

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1880
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge lawfully exercised his discretion in granting leave to commence by originating application; the decision was not based on a wrong principle nor otherwise open to review on the grounds advanced, and the Liquidators may seek directions for discovery under the Rules.
23 May 2014

B G WEST v D GRANT and S KHOV [2014] NZHC 1104

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1104
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave to commence by originating application under Part 19 because the challenge concerned the liquidator's reasons and available information, the issues were not complex and modest in value, no prejudice from use of Part 19 was identified, and standard discovery was not required for proper determination.
20 Dec 2011

MANIFEST CAPITAL MANAGEMENT PTY LTD V LAWRENCE AND MCCULLAGH, AS LIQUIDATORS OF NORTHERN CREST INVESTMENTS LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) HC AK CIV 2010-404-7741

Citation

openlaw-5e0fe054_67b1_4de0_b764_c39b1f890792.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave was granted under s 284(1)(b); on the evidence (documents and witness testimony) the Court found Manifest discharged the onus on the balance of probabilities that Northern Crest owes AUD 3,000,000 and reversed the liquidators' rejection, directing admission of the claim; the Reeves affidavit was ruled inadmissible because, although discussions were without prejudice, the applicant did not establish a prima facie case of dishonest purpose to override privilege; consequential directions and a confidentiality order were made.
14 Oct 2011

LOCK V LAWRENCE HC AK CIV-2011-404-4002

Citation

openlaw-bd2a671a_2abc_4afe_9d7c_4bef6e256024.pdf
Court

High Court

Grant leave under s248(1)(c) and stay the High Court originating application because the dispute is properly an employment relationship problem for the Authority, the company is not insolvent and creditor equality and asset dissipation concerns are not acute, factual issues arising from receivers' re-employment are likely and the Authority is the more suitable forum, and delay or prejudice from a stay is not established.