New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidator liability

Legal area

Court

27 Jan 2017

COMMERCIAL FACTORS LIMITED v MELTZER HAYWARD AND HEATH [2017] NZHC 30

Citation

[2017] NZCCLR 7
Court

High Court

Clauses 3.4 and 3.5 must be read contextually to give effect to the commercial purpose of the funding agreement: where the company received other, non‑earmarked funds after the advice and the liquidators subsequently discontinued proceedings, those clauses can trigger a repayment obligation; because the plaintiff established an arguable entitlement arising from an inter‑company distribution of $27,757.99 the defendants' summary judgment application was not bound to succeed and must be dismissed.
20 Feb 2013

WARREN METALS LTD V GRANT AND KHOV HC AK CIV-2012-404-005190

Citation

openlaw-fa39fba2_1038_4d2c_a965_9ea35b6bdbc0.pdf
Court

High Court

The District Court has jurisdiction to hear personal claims against liquidators for tortious interference with property owned by third parties; ss 248 and 284 of the Companies Act 1993 do not oust District Court jurisdiction for such personal claims and do not prevent third parties suing liquidators personally; issues of liability and passing of property are to be determined by ordinary common law principles in the District Court.
24 Jul 2012

NORRIS V JOHNSON PRICE HOLDINGS LIMITED HC NEL CIV-2011-442-517

Citation

openlaw-aa9d60b9_b979_4b61_a29a_52184138e544.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the law is settled that liquidators who enter agreements may be personally liable for breaches of those agreements and because Johnson Price Holdings was entitled to sue for breach of contract in the District Court rather than being required to invoke the High Court supervisory jurisdiction under s 284 of the Companies Act 1993.
8 Mar 2012

PATRICK DEAN NORRIS V JOHNSON PRICE HOLDINGS LIMITED HC NEL CIV-2011-442-517

Citation

openlaw-c496e961_0afe_41bd_81a6_a019366de5dc.pdf
Court

High Court

The liquidator personally assumed the post‑liquidation obligation to pay rent under the email agreement and is personally enforceable in contract; such claims may be tried in the District Court and are not exclusively within s 284 High Court supervisory proceedings; 'rank with the liquidator' meant the landlord's claim ranks with liquidator's claims (including expenses and remuneration, and payments to the management company qualified as remuneration) and is payable as debts fall due, yielding judgment for $23,342.34 plus interest for the period to 1 May 2009.
11 Aug 2011

GLENMORGAN FARM LIMITED (IN REC AND IN LIQ) V NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK LEASING LIMITED HC AK CIV-2008-404-1759

Citation

openlaw-4cd9bc77_0501_462f_853d_a8f3a37fc8f7.pdf
Court

High Court

The court declined to order the liquidator personally to pay costs because there was no impropriety and the liquidator had acted on legal advice with an arguable case and an appeal pending; however the court ordered non-party S H Lock (NZ) Limited to pay the shortfall because Lock was the sole provider of funding (payment of security for costs), stood to benefit in priority to other creditors by reason of its secured position, and the payment enabled the litigation so that it was just to require Lock to meet the costs shortfall.

New Zealand Case Law

COMMERCIAL FACTORS LIMITED v MELTZER HAYWARD AND HEATH [2017] NZHC 30

WARREN METALS LTD V GRANT AND KHOV HC AK CIV-2012-404-005190

NORRIS V JOHNSON PRICE HOLDINGS LIMITED HC NEL CIV-2011-442-517

PATRICK DEAN NORRIS V JOHNSON PRICE HOLDINGS LIMITED HC NEL CIV-2011-442-517

GLENMORGAN FARM LIMITED (IN REC AND IN LIQ) V NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK LEASING LIMITED HC AK CIV-2008-404-1759