New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Remuneration

Legal area

Court

21 Sept 2023

MEDIAFLOW LIMITED v MARIN [2023] NZHC 2636

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2636
Court

High Court

On the interim without‑notice application the Court found it clearly arguable that Marin breached s161 by not certifying that his employment contract/payments were fair and that payments could jeopardise solvency; however, because of the overlap with employment jurisdiction and the need to hear Marin, the Court declined to grant relief without notice and ordered service and an opportunity to oppose within 10 working days, with further timetable directions if opposed.
30 May 2023

CHIEM v FORDYCE COMPANY LTD [2023] NZHC 1324

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1324
Court

High Court

Costs were apportioned by setting off costs up to 21 July 2021 and awarding costs and disbursements incurred after that date in favour of the plaintiff to reflect the greater time spent on the defendant's counterclaim; applications for increased costs for pre‑21 July 2021 steps were rejected because the plaintiff did not establish a rule basis for increased costs, resulting in the defendant being ordered to pay specified percentages of post‑21 July 2021 costs and disbursements to the plaintiff.
10 Oct 2017

MIKE PERO MORTGAGES LIM ITED v MIKE PERO & ORS [2017] NZHC 2486

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2486
Court

High Court

The disclosure order is limited to documents necessary to quantify overpayments of remuneration made pursuant to the invalidated resolutions; defendants must disclose bank statement entries and related-entity statements only to the extent they evidence executive remuneration payments in excess of $200,000 per annum paid for services to the MPRE companies, and the defendants are required to pay interest on the agreed GST-inclusive principal amount of $2,179,370.34.
7 Jul 2015

DAVID REID HOMES NORTHLAND LIMITED v STRATFUL [2015] NZHC 1598

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1598
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because the applicant established a genuine and substantial dispute about the debt: evidence supported that the respondent, as agent, may have wilfully breached duties by seeking the Metlifecare contract for his own benefit and there was absence of tax invoices/GST evidence; therefore the debt was not appropriate to test the company's solvency and must be litigated in ordinary proceedings.
17 May 2012

ROLLESTON V CHRISTCHURCH RESIDENTIAL CARE LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-001301

Citation

openlaw-208d3413_ceee_4381_9668_8a7b08ae9d91.pdf
Court

High Court

Rather than order an immediate transfer of shares, the Court ordered a practicable interim mechanism (a general power of attorney with notice and objection procedures), required production of missing annual accounts and meaningful financial information, adjourned the substantive application to determine remuneration because there was insufficient evidence of the company's financial position, reserved costs, dismissed the counterclaim to remove the director and adjourned the vesting counterclaim to the adjourned date.
9 Dec 2004

UNISYS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v RUDDLESDEN and Ors CA CA219/04

Citation

openlaw-e2ab4772_4022_4c09_a67b_12061f2aa416.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was refused because the Employment Court correctly identified and applied the contractual terms (including the incorporated policy and MRP 10% band) and there was no error of law of the kind that s214 permits to be appealed; the proposed appeal would only challenge the Employment Court's construction of the agreements and therefore does not warrant leave under s214.

New Zealand Case Law

MEDIAFLOW LIMITED v MARIN [2023] NZHC 2636

CHIEM v FORDYCE COMPANY LTD [2023] NZHC 1324

MIKE PERO MORTGAGES LIM ITED v MIKE PERO & ORS [2017] NZHC 2486

DAVID REID HOMES NORTHLAND LIMITED v STRATFUL [2015] NZHC 1598

ROLLESTON V CHRISTCHURCH RESIDENTIAL CARE LIMITED HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-001301

UNISYS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v RUDDLESDEN and Ors CA CA219/04