New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidator recovery actions

Legal area

Court

4 Jul 2016

MADSEN-RIES & ANOR (AS LIQUIDATORS OF TE PUA ROAD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v DONOVAN DRAINAGE AND EARTHMOVING LIMITED [2016] NZCA 301

Citation

[2016] NZCA 301
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that even if the payments were insolvent transactions, Donovan Drainage established the s 296(3) defence: it acted in good faith and neither it nor a reasonable person in its position would have suspected Te Pua was or would become insolvent given the contemporaneous evidence (temporary cashflow explanation from the developer, industry practices, subsequent payments that cleared invoices, and that the earliest invoice may not have been due until 20 November 2008); insolvency must be assessed more broadly than mere liquidity and the objective/subjective…
9 Mar 2012

VIVIEN JUDITH MADSEN-RIES AND HENRY DAVID LEVIN AS LIQUIDATORS OF FREESTYLE STAINLESS STEEL LIMITED V EVAN LANCE KEMP, TRACEY MICHELLE SOFFE AND GLYNIS MONEY HC AK CIV 2009-404-007876

Citation

openlaw-99c9b5c8_eee6_4ea4_912d_1866f92bc603.pdf
Court

High Court

The respondents failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the $25,000 (and the other amounts of $12,000 and $6,000) were loans or non-company receipts; company records and GST entries indicated the deposits were company business receipts, therefore the payments were insolvent transactions recoverable by the liquidators and judgment was entered for repayment.
2 Dec 2008

NOYCE & ANOR V COREL HOMES LIMITED HC AK CIV 2008-404-002928

Citation

openlaw-53b3c6ae_26f6_46f1_ad6f_1d39dad1f66f.pdf
Court

High Court

The liquidators proved all elements of s298(2)(c): there was a disposal of Hogans property to Corel, Corel was controlled by Hogans director Mr Orrell at the time, the transfer price ($330,000) was substantially less than the reliable pre-subdivision valuation ($550,000), and the transfer occurred within three years of liquidation; accordingly liquidators were entitled to recover the difference of $220,000 plus interest and costs.
31 Oct 2008

DS VANCE V GN BRADBURY HC WN CIV 2008-485-1237

Citation

openlaw-9bde39c0_9ed1_407c_95e1_91f9a47bed89.pdf
Court

High Court

On the evidence the payments were company property disposed of by Touchtec to the defendant within the specified period, the defendant is a relative of the controller who had control, there is no evidence of consideration provided to the company or a tenable factual defence that the payments were not by the company, and therefore summary judgment under r136 is appropriate to recover $40,000 under s298.

New Zealand Case Law

MADSEN-RIES & ANOR (AS LIQUIDATORS OF TE PUA ROAD DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v DONOVAN DRAINAGE AND EARTHMOVING LIMITED [2016] NZCA 301

VIVIEN JUDITH MADSEN-RIES AND HENRY DAVID LEVIN AS LIQUIDATORS OF FREESTYLE STAINLESS STEEL LIMITED V EVAN LANCE KEMP, TRACEY MICHELLE SOFFE AND GLYNIS MONEY HC AK CIV 2009-404-007876

NOYCE & ANOR V COREL HOMES LIMITED HC AK CIV 2008-404-002928

DS VANCE V GN BRADBURY HC WN CIV 2008-485-1237