New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

S 284 companies act 1993

Legal area

Court

16 Jun 2021

NEEDHAM v NAYACAKALOU [2021] NZHC 1424

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1424
Court

High Court

The s 284 application was interlocutory and therefore leave to appeal under s 56(3) was required; however the applicant failed to meet the high threshold for leave because, despite arguable errors, there was no reasonable likelihood that correcting the alleged errors would affect the outcome on s 284 (insufficient assets, reg 36 protection, low prospect of disturbing the liquidator's acts), so interests of justice do not support granting leave.
23 Jul 2020

TEMPEST LITIGATION FUNDERS LTD v DAVIES [2020] NZHC 1790

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1790
Court

High Court

Tempest acted unreasonably by making and persisting with unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty and by seeking wholly unmeritorious and severe relief (including indefinite prohibition from acting as liquidator); the conduct warranted an award of indemnity costs, fixed at 80% of the claimed sum, resulting in an award of $37,646.08 in favour of Mr Davies.
17 Oct 2019

THOMAS v THOMPSON [2019] NZCA 503

Citation

[2019] NZCA 503
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's reversal of the liquidator's decision because the liquidator's refusal to consent to release of the funds was unreasonable: DDC had failed to comply with the agreed dispute-resolution process, the dispute was bound up with an unprovable damages claim and effectively unresolvable in liquidation, and retention of the funds could not be justified as a decision that a reasonable liquidator could make, so the release order was proper under s 284 review principles.
6 Sept 2019

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v LIVINGSPACE PROPERTIES LIMITED[2019] NZHC 2213

Citation

(2019) 25 PRNZ 124
Court

High Court

The Court refused to join the additional parties as formal parties but granted them rights of audience and service in relation to the liquidator's renewed disclosure application; recorded the liquidator's undertaking to refrain from enforcement steps pending resolution so no formal stay was required; found FTG Securities had not established creditor status for leave under s 284(1); and held the Court retains inherent jurisdiction to entertain leave applications by persons outside s 284(1) but such leave must be sought and will be granted only where threshold criteria akin to s 284 are met (fi…
21 Jun 2018

THOMPSON v THOMAS [2018] NZHC 1495

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1495
Court

High Court

The liquidator's decision was reversed because it was unreasonable in the circumstances: the fund represented the applicant's money paid as security after the company failed to comply with the agreed mediation timetable, the liquidator did not sufficiently evaluate the legal merits or obtain appropriate legal advice before withholding consent, and the alternative forums proposed by the liquidator were impractical or inadequate; accordingly the fund must be released to the applicant with the liquidator retaining rights to pursue recovery by appropriate means.
20 Nov 2014

ISAC (NZ) LIMITED v MANAGH [2014] NZHC 2898

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2898
Court

High Court

The court held the liquidator's grounds for rejecting the proof of debt were wrong and directed the liquidator to reconsider the proof of debt; the applicant was the partially successful party and entitled to costs, assessed at High Court Rules category 2B with a minor adjustment reducing accounted time for items 31 and 37 to four days in total; indemnity and increased costs were refused and no order under the Liquidation Regulations was made at this stage because loss remains to be established.
17 Dec 2013

THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES v BODY CORPORATE 307730 CA [2013] NZCA 659 [16 December 2013]

Citation

[2013] NZCA 659
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held s 284(1)(b) can be used to reverse a liquidator's final report even where the liquidator has not acted wrongfully or unreasonably; reversal of the final report is a permissible and necessary step to restore a company to the Register still in liquidation, and prior authorities requiring fault relate to review of discretionary judgments rather than mechanical/statutory acts such as filing a final report.
4 Mar 2013

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V PATEL HC AK CIV-2012-404-4075

Citation

openlaw-6b3663ef_e3f6_4878_9c7e_5f86ac4e0bdf.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave under r 7.52 was granted to permit fuller submissions but the adjournment was refused because the plaintiff and defendant both failed to comply with timetable directions, the delay disadvantaged other court users and efficient case management required refusing the adjournment; the plaintiff's failure to prosecute justified striking out the proceeding under r 15.2 though not a dismissal on the merits; no costs awarded to the defendant under r 14.7(f).
27 Jun 2012

YOUNG & ASSOCIATES LIMITED V DAVID IAN RUSCOE AND RICHARD GRANT SIMPSON HC WN CIV-2012-485-65

Citation

openlaw-be69dce2_2af7_44cb_a339_005542978234.pdf
Court

High Court

The applicant's challenge failed because the liquidators' decision to settle was made in good faith, was within the range of decisions a reasonable liquidator could make given contingent future earnings, outdated valuation and sale risks, and therefore there was no demonstration of fraud, bad faith or irrationality warranting interference under s 284.
8 May 2012

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v NORRIS HC NEL CIV 2011-442-80

Citation

openlaw-1aefeafb_9944_402b_b40d_fd7430c788c0.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave to review, set aside the Associate Judge's strike out and discovery judgments and stayed the proceeding pending the Official Assignee serving a valid s 286(2) notice and any consequent amended pleading; held the 22 December 2010 draft statement of claim did not satisfy s 286(2) as notice of all alleged failures to comply and therefore s 286 relief could not properly be sought on that basis; held struck-off companies may still give rise to continuing failures to comply; prohibition relief under s 286(5) may follow from a single sufficiently serious failure or from persi…