New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proxy voting

Legal area

Court

29 May 2017

NGAWAKA v NGATI REHUA-NGATIWAI KI AOTEA TRUST BOARD [2017] NZHC 1155

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1155
Court

High Court

By consent the Court ordered Elections NZ to oversee registration, proxies and the election process; set requirements and timelines for proxy submission and verification; directed acceptance of prior valid proxies submitted on the official form and confirmed by the previously acting kaumātua; established a ten-member Kaumātua committee (five appointed by each side) to work with Elections NZ and make final binding determinations on whakapapa and voting entitlements; and set notification and meeting deadlines in advance of the AGM.
11 Jun 2014

REEVES v ABANO HEALTHCARE GROUP LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1316

Citation

[2014] NZCCLR23
Court

High Court

s123 did not apply because it was not impracticable to call or conduct the meeting as convened; the notice period complied with Abano's constitution and the Companies Act and was adequate in light of extensive prior publicity and market practice; there was no on-face evidence that Explanatory Notes were so misleading as to justify postponement; accordingly the application to cancel/postpone the meeting was dismissed.
27 Feb 2012

BODY CORPORATE 348047 V STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-3581

Citation

openlaw-931b96f0_10fa_4a71_a9cd_e2ba91dee2c5.pdf
Court

High Court

On the facts neither party was wholly in the right or wrong and neither clearly successful; conduct and context did not justify indemnity or increased costs and events outside the proceeding were not determinative; accordingly costs should lie where they fall and there will be no order as to costs.
29 Jun 2011

BODY CORPORATE 348047 V STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LTD HC AK CIV-2011-404-003581

Citation

openlaw-14c89d9d_612b_45e5_b7f3_24947c4b90ee.pdf
Court

High Court

For interim relief the Court directed the scheduled AGM of 16 July 2011 to proceed and ordered procedural measures to ensure fairness: the agenda agreed at hearing is to be circulated immediately, new proxies must be obtained for that meeting because prior agendas did not contain all items now proposed, and parties must cooperate. The Court accepted it is arguable proxies may count towards quorum but did not finally resolve that issue; interim directions preserve all parties' interests pending final determination.
16 Dec 2010

REEVES AND HARTSTONE V PAUANUI SPORTS AND RECREATIONAL CLUB INC HC HAM CIV 2010-419-1599

Citation

openlaw-64f15833_1609_4ebe_aebe_db30e153d7d9.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held there was material non‑compliance with the club's rule requiring notices to be sent at least 21 clear days before the meeting in respect of approximately 150 members, creating a serious question to be tried; other complaints (misleading memorandum and procedural conduct) did not raise serious questions; an interim injunction was therefore granted preventing the club from giving effect to the 24 October 2010 resolution pending further order.
17 Mar 2009

BODY CORPORATE 318566 V STRATA TITLE ADMINISTRATION LTD HC AK CIV 2008-404-6294

Citation

openlaw-489316ab_83e6_42ee_bc26_38150f8da319.pdf
Court

High Court

Rules 31 and 40(b) are ultra vires because they confer or preserve powers and protections for the secretary that are not incidental or reasonably necessary to the body corporate's statutory duties under the Unit Titles Act 1972 (s15 and s16) and improperly fetter the democratic decision‑making framework established by Schedule 2; accordingly both rules are invalid and the 17 October 2008 resolution confirming Strata is of no effect.
8 Dec 2008

PARIS V HANOVER FINANCE LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2008-404-8139

Citation

openlaw-9f6fe5e6_4f8b_45e2_91ea_1355f321f0b0.pdf
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because (1) proper notice was given under Hanover Finance's trust deed so no serious question on notice; (2) no sufficiently serious question established on the Fair Trading Act, fiduciary duty or misrepresentation claims in respect of the Axis $40m contribution; and (3) the balance of convenience and interests of justice favored refusing relief since investors can move for adjournment at the meetings, substantial proxy voting had occurred, and court intervention would pre-empt the democratic decision of the investor body.
27 May 2008

SURFING TARANAKI INCORPORATED V SURFING NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED HC DUN CIV 2007-412-001063

Citation

openlaw-f2c6556d_3d03_433f_9f04_4637d8f8773e.pdf
Court

High Court

Rule 12.3 must be read in context to require an authorised representative of an incorporated affiliated club to be a member present at the meeting and to permit only one authorised representative vote per incorporated club; rule 12.1.3 requires prior agreement to stand either in person or in writing if the candidate is not present; the association may not, at the meeting, go behind the fact of incorporation and paid subscription to deny voting rights absent evidence meeting contrary formal thresholds.