New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prejudicial disposition

Legal area

Court

14 Feb 2022

WANG v ZHANG [2022] NZHC 171

Citation

[2022] NZHC 171
Court

High Court

The court found Ms Zhang had not sold at an undervalue and thus the plaintiff failed on that critical issue; because the defendant accepted holding half the proceeds and the evidence from discovery showed a proper marketing campaign and realistic offers, the plaintiff's continued pursuit of the undervalue argument after receipt of the second tranche of discovery (by 24 June 2021) was unreasonable and significantly increased costs. Accordingly costs were apportioned: Ms Zhang must pay the plaintiff's costs and disbursements on a 2B basis only for steps up to and including the plaintiff counsel…
24 Nov 2021

WANG v ZHANG [2021] NZHC 3175

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3175
Court

High Court

The Court ordered that reasonable compensation for the gifted half‑share is 50% of the actual net proceeds of sale because the evidence did not establish the property was sold at an undervalue; the first defendant received the disposition in good faith and had changed circumstances (contract accepted) under s349(2) supporting the sale outcome; payments to GFL did not qualify as dispositions under s346 for which compensation could be ordered; compensation is payable to the administrator (Dennis Parsons) to hold on trust for the debtor's creditors.
26 Mar 2019

GONG v ZHANG [2019] NZHC 574

Citation

[2019] NZHC 574
Court

High Court

The transfer of the Property on 22 December 2014 was a disposition under s345(2) and was made by way of gift without reasonably equivalent value; having regard to the debtor's circumstances and authority in Regal Castings, the debtor must be taken to have intended or at least reasonably should have believed that the disposition would incur debts beyond his ability to pay, so s346(2) applies; procedural requirements of s347 were satisfied and s349 did not bar relief because the acquirers did not prove acquisition for valuable consideration in good faith without knowledge; accordingly s348 empo…
11 Dec 2015

TSB BANK LTD v DOLLIMORE [2015] NZHC 3175

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3175
Court

High Court

Although the disposition hindered TSB and therefore prejudiced it under s 345(1)(a), the disposition was made to prefer secured creditors (whose interests were registered) over an unsecured creditor; that routine preference falls within the s 345(1)(b) exception and the purchaser/trustee proved acquisition for valuable consideration and in good faith without knowledge of the prejudicial disposition (s 349), so the court declined to set aside the disposition or order compensation.
13 Jul 2012

BOAT HARBOUR HOLDINGS LTD V STEVE MOWAT BUILDING LTD COA CA146/2011

Citation

COA CA146/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

A caveat can only be maintained if the caveator has a reasonably arguable proprietary interest at the time of lodging; sub-part 6 of the Property Law Act 2007 confers an inchoate contingent claim that does not amount to a caveatable proprietary interest until the court vests property or orders compensation, and adjudication outcomes/charging orders and potential remedial constructive trusts do not establish a caveatable interest here; accordingly the caveat must lapse.
9 Sept 2011

SOMME LIMITED v CENTRAL HOUSE MOVERS LIMITED HC WANG CIV-2011-483-2

Citation

openlaw-013aa192_7bbc_45cf_9e81_3d8279e2aa14.pdf
Court

High Court

Property in the houses passed to Vakamon on delivery and affixture and the houses were fixtures; CHML did not have an enforceable right to enter and remove the houses as owner; although CHML has an arguable equitable mortgage/counterclaims based on the deed of acknowledgment and the conduct of Vakamon and Somme, that does not constitute a defence to Somme's claim for conversion; because there are substantial triable issues (equitable mortgage, bona fide purchaser status, quantum and potential counterclaims) summary judgment is inappropriate and the application is dismissed.
17 Feb 2011

STEVE MOWAT BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V BOAT HARBOUR HOLDINGS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV 2010-409-002698

Citation

openlaw-7f506de6_ffeb_4362_b183_f500933845f6.pdf
Court

High Court

The court found it was not plain that the prejudicial disposition argument could not succeed: there was a real prospect that the 18 August 2010 sale was an undervalue prejudicial disposition benefiting secured parties and shareholders at the expense of unsecured creditors. Given that and exercising the discretion under Land Transfer Act s143(2), the caveat was to be preserved subject to conditions (procure independent valuation within two months, plaintiff to initially fund valuation, and adding liquidators as second plaintiffs) rather than lapsing despite imperfect drafting.

New Zealand Case Law

WANG v ZHANG [2022] NZHC 171

WANG v ZHANG [2021] NZHC 3175

GONG v ZHANG [2019] NZHC 574

TSB BANK LTD v DOLLIMORE [2015] NZHC 3175

BOAT HARBOUR HOLDINGS LTD V STEVE MOWAT BUILDING LTD COA CA146/2011

SOMME LIMITED v CENTRAL HOUSE MOVERS LIMITED HC WANG CIV-2011-483-2

STEVE MOWAT BUILDING & CONSTRUCTION LIMITED V BOAT HARBOUR HOLDINGS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV 2010-409-002698