New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Receivers' duties

Legal area

Court

6 Sept 2023

MEMELINK v HAINES [2023] NZHC 2489

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2489
Court

High Court

The Court awarded costs to the receivers on a 2B basis ($11,233 plus $160 disbursements) and refused Mr Memelink's application for a contribution to his legal fees because the Trust was represented by receivers whose submissions covered the issues, Mr Memelink's contributions did not materially add to the receivers' case, lay litigants are not routinely entitled to recover legal fees as disbursements, and awarding such fees would conflict with s149 Insolvency Act 2006 given his undischarged bankrupt status.
15 Jul 2021

MASON v MCKAY [2021] NZHC 1794

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1794
Court

High Court

The plaintiff failed to establish a sufficiently strong prospect of success on the key factual and legal issues (notably the asserted value and assignability of the Mach Flynt contract and the credibility of investor funding), and the balance of convenience favoured refusing the interlocutory relief because the asserted investor prospect was speculative and did not outweigh the commercial uncertainty and prejudice to third parties; accordingly the without‑notice interim injunction and extension of PLA notices were refused.
9 Nov 2015

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND v D J SAMPSON [2015] NZHC 2768

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2768
Court

High Court

The Court found the defendant had no arguable defence: there was no acceptable evidence of illegitimate duress or any binding agreement by the Bank to release him from his personal guarantees in return for cooperation; the Affordable GSA was executed as security for further funding; the receivers were not conflicted nor improperly directed by the Bank and obtained prices reasonably obtainable; therefore summary judgment was appropriate and judgment was entered for the Bank for the sums claimed together with interest and costs.
25 Nov 2013

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LTD v ADAMS [2013] NZHC 3112

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3112
Court

High Court

Security in the sums sought would effectively deny the Adams access to justice because the third party claims had realistic prospects of success; balancing the merits, the Adams' impecuniosity, and third parties' risk of unrecovered costs, the court ordered modest staged security of $20,000 per third party payable in two tranches, with a stay if tranches not paid, and costs to third parties on Scale 2B and B.
18 Oct 2013

RAPH ENGLE CONCEPTS LIMITED v SCL INDUSTRIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP [2013] NZHC 2732

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2732
Court

High Court

On the material before the Court there was a good probability the liquidation application would succeed, there were serious prima facie doubts about the validity of related‑party securities and receivers' appointments and the receivers' conduct created a real risk to the status quo and creditor interests; accordingly it was expedient under s246 Companies Act 1993 (as applied to limited partnerships) to appoint interim liquidators to preserve assets and investigate the securities and affairs of the limited partnership.
15 Mar 2013

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V HADLOW HC AK CIV-2012-404-003521

Citation

openlaw-622a8a6b_a4e3_4c1a_a2b5_b2ccd99c5b81.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendant had no arguable defence: the receivers were agents of the debtor under the general security agreement, there was no evidence Westpac interfered with the receivers or that the receivers breached s18(2), and Westpac did not breach any duty to the guarantor by discharging the mortgage. Consequently summary judgment was appropriate and granted for the plaintiff for $869,244.40.
30 Mar 2012

SIMPSON AND DOWNES AS RECEIVERS OF CAPITAL + MERCHANT INVESTMENTS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) V COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE COA CA361/2011

Citation

COA CA361/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that GST received on mortgagee sales is an expense of sale under ss5(2) and 17 of the GST Act and s185 of the Property Law Act and therefore must be paid to the Commissioner rather than to the secured creditor; the appointment of receivers does not alter that statutory priority and, in exercise of s34 receivership supervisory powers, the Court directed the receivers to pay the GST they received to the Commissioner (while not finally determining any separate personal liability under s58).
6 Mar 2012

EVIA RURAL FINANCE LIMITED V CRIBB HC HAM CIV-2011-419-631

Citation

openlaw-95c04708_4576_4085_9b5a_a8cea55f4f16.pdf
Court

High Court

An act of bankruptcy occurred, the creditor proved jurisdictional facts, there was no binding compromise or assignment between Evia and Zender Minol (the invoice was a solicitous gesture and did not transfer rights), and on weighing the discretionary factors administration and accountability interests and the unrealistic prospects of recovery from the debtor justified adjudicating Mr Cribb bankrupt.
30 Aug 2011

DOMINION FINANCE GROUP LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) V SHANE ALLEN LE PROU HC ROT CIV 2011-463-000169

Citation

openlaw-eec3efb7_6bd4_4297_894f_1b9617dec5bd.pdf
Court

High Court

The adjudication orders were granted because the Le Prous' complaints derive from rights belonging to Sade (the company) which has abandoned claims; the Le Prous were not parties to the priority deed and therefore cannot rely on it; the guarantees preclude set off or subrogation to Sade's rights; no contractual duty arose to the guarantors under clause 7; and in the exercise of s37 discretion the large outstanding debt and public interest favoured making the adjudication orders.
12 May 2011

THE NATIONAL BANK OF NEW ZEALAND V CLEMENTS HC ROT CIV 2011-463-001

Citation

openlaw-7562f443_4fbe_466d_803a_7c87d212b060.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for an interim injunction was refused because the second defendants are effectively insolvent, their undertaking as to damages is inadequate, there is no established breach by the mortgagee or receivers on the material presented, the counterclaim raises issues that cannot be resolved interlocutorily and delay would cause irrecoverable prejudice to creditors; accordingly the balance of convenience favors allowing the mortgagee sale to proceed.