New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Liquidator review

Legal area

Court

28 Nov 2022

UNITED CIVIL CONSTRUCTION LTD v HAYFIELD SHA LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) [2022] NZHC 3130 _x000b_

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3130
Court

High Court

The liquidators' decision to negotiate with landowners rather than commence litigation was not wrong or unreasonable given complexities and commercial context; United Civil must complete the parties' agreed expert assessment process before further remedies are appropriate; leave to commence adjudication and leave to inspect the liquidators' documents (including landowner agreements) were declined because United Civil failed to show litigation was necessary or a good reason for disclosure.
23 Jul 2021

BBG HOLDINGS LIMITED (in liquidation) v FATUPAITO and BOWKER as joint and several liquidators of CIT HOLDINGS LIMITED (in liquidation) [2021] NZHC 1877

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1877
Court

High Court

Leave granted because BBG established an arguable case with credible contemporaneous documentary evidence and a reasonable likelihood the Court would reverse; the liquidators' reversal was unreasonable given the sale agreement did not cover all properties where works occurred, the invoices were contemporaneous recharges issued while the same director controlled both companies, and the Waimarie joint venture and surrounding facts supported an objective finding that CIT had contracted to reimburse the earthworks. Accordingly the liquidators' decision rejecting BBG's claim is reversed and BBG's…
16 Jun 2021

NEEDHAM v NAYACAKALOU [2021] NZHC 1424

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1424
Court

High Court

The s 284 application was interlocutory and therefore leave to appeal under s 56(3) was required; however the applicant failed to meet the high threshold for leave because, despite arguable errors, there was no reasonable likelihood that correcting the alleged errors would affect the outcome on s 284 (insufficient assets, reg 36 protection, low prospect of disturbing the liquidator's acts), so interests of justice do not support granting leave.
24 Mar 2016

FIFER RESIDENTIAL LTD v NOYCE [2016] NZCA 88

Citation

[2016] NZCA 88
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for an extension of time was refused because the proposed appeal lacked realistic prospects of success: it sought to re-litigate factual findings that were not determinative, no new contemporaneous evidence was produced to undermine the liquidator's reasonable decisions, and the appeal would unreasonably delay liquidation distributions; accordingly the appeal is deemed abandoned and costs were awarded to the successful respondents.

New Zealand Case Law

UNITED CIVIL CONSTRUCTION LTD v HAYFIELD SHA LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) [2022] NZHC 3130 _x000b_

BBG HOLDINGS LIMITED (in liquidation) v FATUPAITO and BOWKER as joint and several liquidators of CIT HOLDINGS LIMITED (in liquidation) [2021] NZHC 1877

NEEDHAM v NAYACAKALOU [2021] NZHC 1424

FIFER RESIDENTIAL LTD v NOYCE [2016] NZCA 88