New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidator disclaimer

Legal area

Court

9 Aug 2023

KEXIN MENG v REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2023] NZHC 2093

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2093
Court

High Court

The court reversed the liquidator's final report and restored South Pacific because the company retained a pre-disclaimer litigation right to pursue a breach of lease claim that was not disclaimed and could not be vested in the guarantor under s 269(5); restoration was just and equitable to enable the company to pursue that claim, and reversal of the final report was necessary to permit restoration to have full effect.
23 Jul 2019

GP96 LTD v PVG SECURITIES TRUSTEE LTD [2019] NZCA 325

Citation

[2019] NZCA 325
Court

Court of Appeal

GP96 failed to establish a reasonably arguable continuing leasehold interest enforceable against PVG because the lease did not bind PVG (no consent by PVG or predecessors) and, in any event, the lease terminated when the landlord received no insurance monies available for reinstatement because FMC lawfully applied insurance proceeds to repay secured debt pursuant to its mortgage; accordingly PVG was entitled to removal of the caveat and the 2011 interim injunction could be rescinded; the Court may restrain further caveats in these circumstances.
28 May 2019

GP96 LIMITED v F M CUSTODIANS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1183

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1183
Court

High Court

PVG's registered second mortgages predate the alleged lease and there is no evidence PVG or its predecessor consented to the lease or its assignment; under the Land Transfer Act a mortgagee sale vests title in the purchaser free of unenforceable later interests, therefore GP96's caveat is unsustainable and must be removed and the 2011 interim injunction lifted.
21 Jul 2016

Goodman v Attorney-General [2016] NZHC 1668

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1668
Court

High Court

Because the Official Assignee disclaimed the company's two-fifths interest which therefore vested in the Crown, the Crown expressly declined to claim the interest and consented to the plaintiff's application, and the plaintiff established beneficial ownership, the Court exercised its power under s 269(5) to vest the two-fifths share in the plaintiff.
31 Oct 2013

McFARLAND v THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZHC 2885

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2885
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the review because the applicant offered no proper ground within the limited scope of judicial review to overturn the Tribunal: the complaint amounted to a merits grievance, the Trust had at best a creditor claim (not proprietary rights in the timber), the liquidator's disclaimer did not create rights for the Trust, and there was no procedural unfairness in the Tribunal's conduct under s50 to justify quashing the decisions.
11 Jul 2011

TOMPKINS V WENSLEY DEVELOPMENTS THE MARINA LTD(IN LIQUIDATION) HC INV CIV 2009-425-000101 & 711

Citation

openlaw-448471c3_4656_4c9c_921b_cdf125d30d68.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed Wensley's application for substitution but ordered 875 be added as a second party (defendant/plaintiff as appropriate), granted leave for the existing parties to continue claims against Wensley, and ordered 875 to provide security for costs (including a partly backward-looking component) in specified amounts and by specified deadlines; costs of the Jansen/Tompkins applications were fixed on a 2B basis and ordered in the cause.

New Zealand Case Law

KEXIN MENG v REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES [2023] NZHC 2093

GP96 LTD v PVG SECURITIES TRUSTEE LTD [2019] NZCA 325

GP96 LIMITED v F M CUSTODIANS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1183

Goodman v Attorney-General [2016] NZHC 1668

McFARLAND v THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZHC 2885

TOMPKINS V WENSLEY DEVELOPMENTS THE MARINA LTD(IN LIQUIDATION) HC INV CIV 2009-425-000101 & 711