New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Preferential payments

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2023

NORRIS WARD McKINNON v SKELTON of Waimate North, Kaikohe [2023] NZHC 2016

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2016
Court

High Court

Debtor failed to discharge the onus under s37 to show adjudication should be refused: there is prima facie entitlement to adjudication (judgment debt and served bankruptcy notice), and the unsatisfactory explanations and evidence of potential asset disposals and unexplained proceeds justify Official Assignee investigation; debtor's health and circumstances do not outweigh the need for investigation, so the court will not refuse adjudication and the matter is to be listed for bankruptcy proceedings.
30 Jun 2022

WHITLEY v SDCIC NZ ARCHITECTURE LTD [2022] NZHC 1528

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1528
Court

High Court

The Court found the vehicle was conveyed to SDCIC (through its sole director) not to Mr Wu personally; SDCIC was a creditor of Ezybuilding Group and, by receiving $20,000 and the vehicle within the restricted period when the company was insolvent, received more than it would in liquidation. The transfers were therefore voidable and, as SDCIC did not object to the notice, automatically set aside as against it. The Court exercised its discretion under s295 to order SDCIC to repay $20,000 and to pay an amount fairly representing the benefit received from the vehicle transaction ($25,240). The ap…
13 May 2020

DALTON and KEMP v AVANTI FINANCE LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1020

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1020
Court

High Court

The plaintiff liquidators failed to establish transactions at undervalue under s297: Avanti made advances (drawings) at Fabri-Cell's request and Fabri-Cell received value in the form of those advances and consequent reduction of indebtedness (including payments made on Fabri-Cell's behalf by JSR); the taking of security interests over invoices and the existence of registered security over forklifts did not constitute measurable transfer of monetary value to Avanti for s297 purposes; accordingly no recoverable undervalue arose and the proceeding is dismissed.
25 Sept 2019

LEVIN v AUTOTERMINAL NEW ZEALAND LTD [2019] NZHC 2412

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2412
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion under High Court Rules r18.1(e) to require the proceeding to proceed under Part 18 because the s292 Companies Act claim and the s348 Property Law Act claim could not be disregarded as redundant at this early stage, they raise closely related and potentially novel legal and factual issues (including tracing of payments and treatment of security interests and good faith defences), and Part 18 is more likely to secure a just, speedy and inexpensive determination by permitting pleadings and fuller discovery and case management.
8 Jun 2017

EBERT CONSTRUCTION LIMITED v SANSON & ANOR [2017] NZCA 239

Citation

(2017) 14 TCLR 607
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the challenged cash payments were made by the financier (BOSI) pursuant to its own direct contractual obligation to the builder under the direct agreement and not 'by' the company (TPL) for purposes of s292, and therefore they were not voidable insolvent transactions; the apartment conveyance merely implemented a 2006 arrangement that conferred equitable title pre-liquidation and thus was not an insolvent transaction.
20 Dec 2016

WILLESTON VENTURES LIMITED v SCUTTER [2016] NZHC 3146

Citation

[2016] NZHC 3146
Court

High Court

The application for inspection under s256 was dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a specific persuasive or concrete reason to inspect; the liquidator's decisions were within acceptable professional judgment supported by legal advice and evidence, and the request was overly broad and risked being a fishing expedition that would needlessly prolong the liquidation and harm creditors.
20 May 2016

MELTZER & ANOR as liquidators of LOWIE RECRUITMENT LIMITED (in Liquidation) v POUNAMU INTERNATIONAL LIMITED & Anor [2016] NZHC 1065

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1065
Court

High Court

The court refused the broad particular discovery sought because the plaintiffs failed to show a sufficient basis to suppose the disputed documents were in the defendants' control and relevant under r 8.7; no general order for extensive discovery was justified. The court directed a confined, proportionate tailored discovery process with tight timelines and reserved costs until conclusion of discovery.
6 Oct 2015

SANSON AND ANOR v EBERT CONSTRUCTION LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2402

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2402
Court

High Court

The payments made by BOSI under the Direct Agreement were advances of TPL's funds and functioned to reduce TPL's indebtedness to Ebert; those advances and the transfer of the apartment were transactions of TPL entered into within the restricted/specified period while TPL was insolvent; Ebert failed to prove the cumulative s296(3) defence (good faith and lack of reasonable grounds to suspect insolvency), so recovery under s295 is ordered.
29 Apr 2015

DAVID ROSS PETTERSON AS LIQUIDATOR OF POLYETHYLENE PIPE SYSTEMS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v DAVID CHARLES BROWNE [2015] NZHC 866

Citation

[2015] NZHC 866
Court

High Court

The Court held the GSA would not be set aside because PPS was solvent when the transactions occurred, the transfers and charge formed part of a legitimate, contemporaneous restructuring for which the directors had reasonable grounds (including reliance on advice about insurance), and the advance was, in substance, by David Browne; accordingly the liquidator's applications were dismissed.
24 Oct 2013

BLANCHETT v MOWBRAY [2013] NZHC 2797

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2797
Court

High Court

Respondents failed to establish s296(3)(c): repayment of antecedent debt did not constitute new value and there was no evidence they altered their position in reliance on the payments being valid; therefore the statutory defence does not apply and the liquidators are entitled to recover the set aside payments with interest.