New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Piercing the corporate veil

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2019

JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES PLC v KAREN LOUISE WHITE AND THE PERSONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE 1 [2019] NZSC 39

Citation

[2019] NZSC 39
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court refused leave because it was not necessary in the interests of justice to determine the interlocutory questions before trial: the issues raised involved mixed questions of law and fact requiring fuller evidence, the operating companies remained proper parties so JHI suffered little prejudice in remaining a party, complex interlocutory resolution would be artificial and disproportionate, and the disputed questions could be addressed on appeal after final determination.
12 Nov 2018

EDEL METALS GROUP LTD v GEIER LTD [2018] NZCA 494

Citation

[2018] NZCA 494
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held that a non-party director can be ordered to pay indemnity costs where the director, as sole controller, caused litigation to be commenced and continued opportunistically and improperly by taking advantage of prior restructuring; however the quantum of indemnity costs must be judicially assessed as 'reasonably incurred' with proper analysis and justification by the trial court, and where the trial judge failed to adequately assess reasonableness the matter must be remitted to the High Court for reassessment (potentially by an Associate Judge). The Court also held that…
22 Feb 2017

EDEL METALS GROUP LIMITED v GEIER LIMITED [2017] NZHC 225

Citation

[2017] NZHC 225
Court

High Court

Given the prior judicial findings and severe criticism of the steps used to create and call the share capital, and because the director (Mr Sorenson) pursued the call and proceedings despite that knowledge and without shareholder approval, his conduct was improper and an abuse of the corporate form for the purposes of r 14.6(4)(a); consequently EMG's claim is struck out for failure to meet security for costs and EMG and Mr Sorenson are ordered to pay the defendants' actual costs and disbursements (indemnity measure) with interest and quantum to be addressed further.
11 Jul 2016

HARRISON & ANOR v KEOGH [2016] NZHC 1555

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1555
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed points did not raise questions of law or fact of sufficient public or private importance to outweigh cost and delay; the matters were largely fact-specific, previously considered by lower courts, involved modest sums and limited prospects of success, and would unduly burden appellate resources; the High Court's application of estoppel and remedy was appropriate on the facts, and personal liability of the director was justified by his personal assurances and conduct rather than piercing the corporate veil.
20 Nov 2015

FERREIRA v STOCKINGER [2015] NZHC 2916

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2916
Court

High Court

Plaintiff's causes of action were dismissed because he failed to prove equitable estoppel or unconscionable conduct as pleaded: the alleged advances were either corporate in nature (recoverable, if at all, by indemnity or money-lent/money-paid claims) or occurred outside New Zealand raising jurisdictional issues; he failed to pierce corporate personality; conversion claims were inadequately pleaded and lacked proof of immediate right to possession and causation; Property (Relationships) Act relief was inappropriate because claimed amounts were advances expected to be repaid rather than qualif…
2 Oct 2014

PATEL v PATEL [2014] NZHC 2410

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2410
Court

High Court

The Court exercised discretion across multiple interlocutory applications: it refused to stay proceedings for partial non-payment of an interlocutory costs award because the case concerns substantial assets and partial non-compliance did not justify stay; it dismissed the plaintiff's application to debar the second defendant and ordered the second defendant to pay $10,935.08 into Court to be immediately transferred in part payment of the outstanding costs against the plaintiff; it refused to require undertakings as to damages from the plaintiff or her litigation funder given the prima facie m…
14 Apr 2010

QUEK AND ANOR V LAVENDERS RESTAURANT & BAR LIMITED AND ORS HC WN CIV-2006-485-1890

Citation

openlaw-b6f79c64_6d93_4736_a31a_25673de1ab75.pdf
Court

High Court

The counterclaims were dismissed because no fiduciary duties arose between the shareholders of the incorporated Lavenders absent a statutory basis to impose equitable duties, the corporate veil was not pierced, and the plaintiffs' conduct did not meet the high threshold required for exemplary damages.
29 Aug 2006

BODY CORPORATE NO 202254 AND ANOR V ABC ORS HC AK CIV 2003-404-3116

Citation

openlaw-8c4f5d50_b07b_44fe_91b1_0443f9e553c8.pdf
Court

High Court

The Fair Trading Act claims (first and second causes) as pleaded are contestable and not amenable to summary judgment or strike-out at this stage because material facts and attributions are disputed; by contrast, the negligence causes (third and newly-pleaded fourth) fail because the plaintiffs have not pleaded with the necessary particularity an overt assumption of personal liability by the director sufficient to pierce the corporate veil, and those causes are struck out for finality.