New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Priority of claims

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2020

PAUL v MEAD [2020] NZHC 666

Citation

[2020] NZFLR 1042
Court

High Court

The Family Court does not have jurisdiction under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 to determine property rights of three persons in a polyamorous relationship, nor to do so by dividing the polyamorous relationship into dyadic parts, because the Act's definitions and scheme are premised on two‑person 'couple' relationships and ss 52A/52B do not expand the Act to multi‑partner relationships; equitable remedies remain available.
19 Dec 2019

Re Kelly in the matter of HALIFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2019] NZHC 3434

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3434
Court

High Court

The Court will permit reasonable remuneration, costs and disbursements of the liquidators and trustees to be paid from trust property and specified company accounts where the work is substantially connected to administering the trust assets, apportionment is impractical, and reimbursement is just and reasonable under Trustee Act s38(2), s72 and the Court's inherent jurisdiction.
11 Sept 2018

PETTERSON v McCONNELL DOWELL CONSTRUCTORS LTD [2018] NZHC 2379

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2379
Court

High Court

McConnell Dowell is entitled to preferential ranking under Schedule 7 cl 1(1)(e) for recoveries of $1,114,253 and for costs of $297,748.80 because it funded litigation after liquidation that resulted in recoveries for the liquidation; Mr Browne is not entitled to priority under cl 1(1)(e) because the payments/indemnities at issue were not for the benefit of the general body of creditors nor consented to by the liquidator and the recoveries during liquidation attributable to him were limited, and his non-preferential unsecured claim is not limited to $201,316.
8 Aug 2018

RE FISK AND BRIDGMAN [2018] NZHC 2007

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2007
Court

High Court

The Court directed that RAM and Dagger be treated as one company and their assets pooled; equitable tracing into the common fund and the rule in Clayton's Case are rejected; investors who withdrew more than they invested (net winners) are excluded from distribution; the liquidators shall apply a CPI constant dollar approach to value claims; priority is given to general unsecured creditors and investors' capital shortfall claims ahead of speculative damages claims; and the net contribution model is the appropriate algorithm to distribute both company and trust assets. Liquidators' costs are to…
10 Jul 2018

C A L GOWER and Anor v FTG SECURITIES LIMITED [2019] NZHC 1610

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1610
Court

High Court

The Court held parts of the liquidator's Notice of Appearance that sought substantive, wide-ranging claims (paras 9(b)–(e)) were not ancillary, were an abuse of process and were struck out; the limited claim that the surplus remaining after BNZ's priority should be held for TVL (para 9(a)) was legitimately ancillary and not struck out; FTG's application for security for costs against the liquidator was dismissed; the proceeding was stayed for 10 working days to allow the liquidator to commence specific proceedings and seek consolidation; costs to lie where they fall.
12 Jun 2017

RANOLF COMPANY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) v BHANA AND BHANA & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1183 [12 June 2017]

Citation

[2017] NZAR 1047
Court

High Court

Ranolf was a trustee from 26 May 2004 to 22 July 2015; the four creditor debts were incurred by Ranolf as trustee; the trust deed indemnity (and s 38 Trustee Act) authorises recourse to trust assets to meet those debts and to meet reasonable costs incurred enforcing the indemnity; liquidators' enforcement costs are recoverable from trust assets but must be assessed for reasonableness and were reduced by the Court to specified amounts which are ordered to be paid with priority in accordance with company law.
4 May 2016

THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD v BROWN & ORS [2016] NZHC 882

Citation

[2016] NZHC 882
Court

High Court

Because the co‑owners (Childs and Gillett) made no claim and Ms Brown's equitable claim based on her $225,000 cash contribution was compelling, the Court ordered the net proceeds (after secured creditor repayment and the IRD demand) be paid to Ms Brown's solicitors and allowed the Bank's interpleader/discharge.
26 Aug 2015

GLENCORE GRAIN BV v THE SHIP LANCELOT V [2015] NZHC 2052

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2052
Court

High Court

The court ordered appraisement and sale pendente lite because the heavy and continuing costs of arrest, the risk of material deterioration and diminution of the vessel's value, the owner's failure or inability to provide security and absence of evidence that delay would secure funds, and the undisputed crew claims together justified creating a realizable fund for claimants under High Court Rules r25.51 and r7.56 and established admiralty precedent.
12 Jun 2015

STEPHEN KIM BENNETT AND TIMOTHY JOHN HOYLE v AMANDA JUDITH BLACKLEY [2015] NZHC 1322

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1322
Court

High Court

The court held that although the s 42 notices give Mr Blackley priority over subsequent creditors, he did not establish an arguable case that he required the entire equity in the properties or that Mrs Blackley had deliberately diminished relationship property to exhaust all equity; accordingly the court ordered removal of Mr Blackley's caveat immediately and removal of other caveats/charging orders upon presentation of transfer for the sheriff sale of 90 Tahunatapu Road, directed sale by auction, required payment of sale costs and the liquidators' judgment from proceeds and ordered the balan…
23 Dec 2013

BFSL 2007 LIMITED & ORS (IN LIQUIDATION) v STEIGRAD [2013] NZSC 156

Citation

[2013] NZSC 156
Court

Supreme Court

The statutory charge under s 9(1) attaches on the happening of the event giving rise to the third‑party claim and secures the amount of the insured's liability as it is finally established (subject to the policy limit); defence costs are not within the statutory charge and payment of defence costs prior to judgment that would deplete funds available to meet the charged claim is at the insurer's risk.