New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Repayment orders

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2016

DAVID CHARLES BROWNE v DAVID ROSS PETTERSON AS LIQUIDATOR OF POLYETHYLENE PIPE SYSTEMS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2016] NZSC 107

Citation

[2016] NZSC 107
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave by Mr Browne was dismissed because the Court of Appeal's factual conclusions did not disclose a miscarriage of justice and because s299 empowers the Court to make orders, including repayment, to give effect to setting aside a security; leave was granted to the two companies limited to whether repayment orders should have been made against them.
26 May 2016

HAMISH MCINTOSH v JOHN HOWARD ROSS FISK AND DAVID JOHN BRIDGMAN [2016] NZSC 58 [26 May 2016]

Citation

[2016] NZSC 58
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and cross-appeal and approved two discrete questions for determination: whether the payment made by RAM to the applicant should be set aside in whole or in part and, if so, whether the recoverable amount is $954,047 or $454,047.
19 Feb 2013

MADSEN-RIES V BURROWES HC AK CIV-2012-404-005120

Citation

openlaw-cf5492be_1dd6_4ed2_b5f4_40050210e082.pdf
Court

High Court

The payment of $400,000 was an insolvent transaction made within the restricted period and voidable under the Companies Act 1993; respondents failed to establish the s 296(3) defence because a reasonable director in the respondent's position would have suspected insolvency and taken enquiries; the excess $94,254.91 over the recorded shareholders' credit was an advance repayable on demand; delay and asserted impecuniosity did not justify ordering less than full repayment; therefore the transaction was set aside and repayment ordered.
15 Jul 2011

BURNS AND Anor AS LIQUIDATORS OF CITY GOLF (NORTH SHORE) LIMITED V IT CONSULTING & INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-3178

Citation

openlaw-61798738_f526_4a9a_84fc_0050334a3f5b.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the transactions were validly set aside under s294 and the respondent filed no objection or evidence, the Court exercised its s295 discretion to order repayment of $43,875 together with interest and costs; absent evidence of injustice the statutory presumption favours such an order.

New Zealand Case Law

DAVID CHARLES BROWNE v DAVID ROSS PETTERSON AS LIQUIDATOR OF POLYETHYLENE PIPE SYSTEMS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2016] NZSC 107

HAMISH MCINTOSH v JOHN HOWARD ROSS FISK AND DAVID JOHN BRIDGMAN [2016] NZSC 58 [26 May 2016]

MADSEN-RIES V BURROWES HC AK CIV-2012-404-005120

BURNS AND Anor AS LIQUIDATORS OF CITY GOLF (NORTH SHORE) LIMITED V IT CONSULTING & INVESTMENTS LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-3178