New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Preferences

Legal area

Court

10 May 2016

PETTERSON AS LIQUIDATOR OF POLYETHYLENE PIPE SYSTEMS LTD (IN LIQ) V BROWNE [2016] NZCA 189

Citation

[2016] NZCA 189
Court

Court of Appeal

Given the chronology and documentary record, the GSA and associated repayments were entered into to prefer the director and related companies in anticipation of McConnell Dowell's substantial claim; PPS was contingently insolvent when transactions occurred; the recipients did not establish the s296(3) statutory defence (good faith/reasonable belief as to solvency/alteration of position); accordingly it was just and equitable under s299 to set aside the GSA as against the liquidator and appropriate to order repayment under s299(3) and s295.
11 Nov 2015

GALVANISING (HB) LTD & ORS v FISK AND ANOR AS LIQUIDATORS OF EAST QUIP LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZCA 529

Citation

(2015) 14 TCLR 204
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held s 292(4B) did not apply because the impugned payments were transactions between EQL and the other group entities, not transactions with the Eastons as creditors within the meaning of s 292(4B); funding by the Eastons constituted separate transactions (if at all) and the payments were not made to induce further credit but to preserve group business, so the payments were voidable insolvent transactions recoverable by the liquidators.
15 Jun 2015

LEVIN AND MADSEN-RIES AS LIQUIDATORS OF ZENITH KITCHEN & JOINERY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v BCS HOLDING ACCOUNT LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1564

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1564
Court

High Court

Zenith was unable to pay its due debts during the relevant periods; payments to Holding Account Ltd from 10 May 2007 to 19 December 2008 ($39,500) were voidable under s 292; payments of $37,177.61 made in September–October 2006 were in the ordinary course of business and saved; supplies in late August 2006 reduced the preference by $5,591.19; Holding Account Ltd failed s 296(3) because a reasonable person in its position would have suspected Zenith was insolvent; the court declined to exercise s 295 discretion to deny relief but limited interest recoverable to two years; orders followed accor…
20 May 2015

V J MADSEN REIS AND H D LEVIN v DONOVAN DRAINAGE AND EARTH MOVING LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1081

Citation

[2015] NZCCLR 13
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed because the respondent demonstrated it acted in good faith, gave value and a reasonable person in the respondent's position would not have had reasonable grounds to suspect the Company's insolvency given the commercial context and industry practices; therefore the s296(3) defence applies and the payments are not recoverable.
18 Feb 2015

ALLIED CONCRETE LIMITED v JEFFREY PHILIP MELTZER AND LLOYD JAMES HAYWARD AS LIQUIDATORS OF WINDOW HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZSC 7

Citation

(2015) 13 TCLR 833
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that 'gave value' in s 296(3)(c) includes antecedent value (including satisfaction/release of an antecedent debt) provided the creditor proves it acted in good faith and had no reasonable grounds to suspect the company's insolvency; accordingly creditors paid for antecedent debts can invoke the s 296(3) defence and payments in the appeals were not recoverable by the liquidators.
6 Oct 2014

BLANCHETT & Anor v RBI LIMITED [2014] NZHC 2450

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2450
Court

High Court

r14.11(3) did not apply because the $10,000 offer did not exceed the judgment; although r14.11(4) permits consideration of offers close to the judgment, the liquidators' refusal was reasonable given substantive legal uncertainty on the peak‑indebtedness rule and significant contested factual and legal issues (including attribution of directors' knowledge); accordingly costs should lie where they fall.
24 Oct 2013

ALLIED CONCRETE LIMITED v JEFFREY PHILIP MELTZER AND LLOYD JAMES HAYWARD AS LIQUIDATORS OF WINDOW HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2013] NZSC 102

Citation

[2013] NZSC 102
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and framed the approved question for determination: whether the Associate Judge and Court of Appeal were correct to conclude the payments to the applicants should be set-aside and that judgment should be entered against them; the substantive merits will be resolved on appeal.
21 Oct 2013

BURGESS and YOUNG v THE RAINDANCE COMPANY NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2738

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2738
Court

High Court

Payments were not voidable under s292 because they were contemporaneous payments for services (cash‑on‑delivery style): Raindance provided value at the time of each payment and therefore was not a creditor who received more than it would in liquidation; accordingly the liquidators' ss294/295 application is dismissed.
10 Oct 2013

LEVIN and MADSEN-RIES v TITAN CRANES LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2628

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2628
Court

High Court

The court found G T Rigging Ltd was unable to pay its due debts at the times of payment; the first three payments (16 Feb, 6 Mar, 3 May 2007) were made in the ordinary course and saved by transitional provisions, but the payments of 22 June and 31 July 2007 were made in response to a statutory demand and threats of liquidation, were not in the ordinary course, are voidable under s 292, and Titan failed to establish the defence under s 296(3) because a reasonable person in Titan's position would have suspected insolvency and Titan did not prove a relevant alteration of position; accordingly th…
5 Sept 2013

MADSEN-RIES AND LEVIN AS LIQUIDATORS OF SHEPTON INVESTMENTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v BOYD-DUNLOP [2013] NZHC 2153

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2153
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the company did not make a payment or equivalent to the trustees; the ledger entries reflected a tripartite arrangement that produced a benefit to the shareholders by way of set-off and reinstatement of the shareholders' debt is required; accordingly the court ordered repayment by the shareholders under s 295(c) and recognised the trustees' original debt claim under s 295(g).