New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

S 248 companies act 1993

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2020

KOCATÜRK v ZARA’S TURKISH LIMITED (IN LIQ) [2020] NZHC 3124

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3124
Court

High Court

Given the specific circumstances — part‑heard proceedings with limited further hearing time, transfer of trading to a related entity, the timing and conduct surrounding the voluntary liquidation, and the inability to dismiss prospects of meaningful recovery or potential personal liability of directors — the court concluded it was appropriate to exercise its discretion under s 248 to grant leave to continue the Employment Court proceedings and awarded costs to the applicants on a scale 2B basis.
11 Nov 2020

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v DECMIL CONSTRUCTION NZ LTD (IN LIQ) [2020] NZHC 2976 [11 November 2020]

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2976
Court

High Court

Leave under s 248 was granted because the disputes are complex and more suitably determined by the nominated arbitrator, there is a realistic prospect of enforcement via the parent company guarantor making the proceeding non‑futile, the liquidator is less able and potentially conflicted to determine the claims, and there is an existing contractual commitment to arbitrate.
19 Oct 2015

PUB CHARITY INC v SWEET LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2554

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2554
Court

High Court

Leave was granted because the claim was not clearly unsustainable, the defendant was insured and any judgment could be met by the insurer (with an automatic charge under s 9 Law Reform Act 1936), the liquidator did not oppose continuation, and there was no utility in joining the insurer as a defendant; accordingly continuation would not unfairly prejudice creditors or dissipate company assets.
1 May 2014

EXTERIOR BUILDING CARE GOLEMAN LIMITED v AIR FLUID OTAGO LIMITED [2014] NZHC 887

Citation

[2014] NZHC 887
Court

High Court

Leave to continue was granted because the plaintiff's claim was not clearly unsustainable, there were few other creditors so continuation did not offend creditor equality, litigation was necessary and presently the only realistic means to determine liability and to investigate/recover assets allegedly dissipated pre‑liquidation, and the liquidator had not accepted or indicated he would resolve the claim in liquidation.

New Zealand Case Law

KOCATÜRK v ZARA’S TURKISH LIMITED (IN LIQ) [2020] NZHC 3124

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS v DECMIL CONSTRUCTION NZ LTD (IN LIQ) [2020] NZHC 2976 [11 November 2020]

PUB CHARITY INC v SWEET LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2554

EXTERIOR BUILDING CARE GOLEMAN LIMITED v AIR FLUID OTAGO LIMITED [2014] NZHC 887