New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Moratorium

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2021

BARTLETTS CREEK VINEYARD LTD PARTNERSHIP v MAGINNESS and BOOTH (as administrators of SACRED HILL MARLBOROUGH VINEYARDS LTD) [2021] NZHC 2295

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2295
Court

High Court

The Court had jurisdiction to reconsider the without‑notice extension order because leave was reserved to creditors to apply to vary or set it aside; the administrators presented sufficient grounds (urgent risk to sale as going concern and prejudice from delay in serving many creditors) to justify a without‑notice application under High Court Rules r7.23/r7.46, although the supporting materials should have better identified and explained the specific r7.23 grounds and the reason for the late filing; accordingly Bartletts Creek's application to set aside or challenge the without‑notice procedu…
18 Nov 2016

RE PUMPKIN PATCH LTD [2016] NZHC 2771

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2771
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its s239ADO(1) discretion to extend the convening period to 28 February 2017 because the administrators demonstrated the extension was necessary and appropriate given the group's complexity, receivers' ongoing realisations, and the imminent Christmas trading period; the Court permitted electronic publication of the s239AU(3) accompanying documents on the administrators' website with a covering letter and offer of posted/emailed copies on request, relying on the Electronic Transactions Act and the need to promote creditors' interests and enable informed decision‑making at t…
19 Sept 2012

TRUSTEES EXECUTORS LTD V PERPETUAL TRUST LTD HC AK CIV 2012-404-3569

Citation

openlaw-48a6cb9b_3305_49db_a469_bd744671f38d.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court had jurisdiction under s49 of the Securities Act 1978 and, exercising its discretion to protect security holders where there was a significant risk of material prejudice and deed provisions were inadequate, it was justified in amending the trust deed and declaration and ordering termination of the illiquid Mortgage Fund to provide an efficient, equitable winding-up mechanism and to prevent recurrence of the risky lending practice.
26 Feb 2010

DOMINION FINANCE GROUP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP & IN LIQUIDATION) V DAVID ANDREW TAUBER HC AK CIV-2009-404-6248

Citation

openlaw-68faf061_4fef_4f50_a081_79afd1e0af8d.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was declined because the defendant advanced an arguable defence—namely an estoppel or informal compromise inducing him to invest and permitting Dominion Finance to defer enforcement—and the plaintiff's evidence was too vague to rebut that defence; therefore there remained a real question to be tried and summary judgment was inappropriate.
9 Jul 2009

RED BLACK EVENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2009-404-003252

Citation

openlaw-1dc6ffc4_50d5_466f_abde_f6a3410753a2.pdf
Court

High Court

The court approved the compromise because statutory requisites were satisfied: the scheme was fairly presented, a majority in value and number voted in favour, service of further particulars was effected and any procedural delay was harmless given no creditor opposed; the lone dissent did not establish unreasonable prejudice.

New Zealand Case Law

BARTLETTS CREEK VINEYARD LTD PARTNERSHIP v MAGINNESS and BOOTH (as administrators of SACRED HILL MARLBOROUGH VINEYARDS LTD) [2021] NZHC 2295

RE PUMPKIN PATCH LTD [2016] NZHC 2771

TRUSTEES EXECUTORS LTD V PERPETUAL TRUST LTD HC AK CIV 2012-404-3569

DOMINION FINANCE GROUP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP & IN LIQUIDATION) V DAVID ANDREW TAUBER HC AK CIV-2009-404-6248

RED BLACK EVENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV 2009-404-003252