New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sale at undervalue

Legal area

Court

1 Sept 2023

SCARGETTA v ASB BANK LTD [2023] NZHC 2413

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2413
Court

High Court

The Court struck out all causes of action against ASB: the first and third causes (sale-at-undervalue claims) are an abuse of process and barred by prior determinations of the Court of Appeal that there was no tenable case the properties were sold at an undervalue; the second (syndication) cause fails to disclose a reasonably arguable cause because pleaded facts amount only to ASB's knowledge of syndication and not to any representation or promise to facilitate it; consequently all claims against ASB are struck out.
31 Jul 2023

MEMELINK v HAINES [2023] NZHC 1711

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1711
Court

High Court

The Court has power under r 15.1 and inherent jurisdiction to strike out proceedings notwithstanding a receivership stay, but refused to exercise that power here because the receivership stay was properly imposed to protect trust assets, no waiver was sought, the strike out grounds were not straightforward or clearly determinative (overlap with related proceedings and distinct claims against non-party defendants to the related proceeding), and striking out would unfairly divert receivers and prejudice other creditors; accordingly the strike out and costs application was dismissed and the stay…
16 Mar 2022

TATA v ABRAMS [2022] NZHC 479

Citation

[2022] NZHC 479
Court

High Court

Interpleader relief was declined because there was no realistic expectation of two or more competing claims to the same fund; the firm was justified in withholding the estate funds given legitimate concerns (executor capacity, sale at undervalue, AML non-compliance) but should have sought directions under trust law rather than pursue interpleader; the firm is nevertheless entitled to scale costs limited to its protective steps up to 1 December 2021, payable from the estate.
20 Dec 2017

BURGESS v MONK [2017] NZHC 3255

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3255
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs failed to prove any proprietary interest by constructive trust; the 1980 agreement was unenforceable as to CTE company formalities; Molly's 1998 will conferred discretionary powers on trustees not a binding precatory trust; trustees did not breach fiduciary or trustee duties in the conduct and sale and acted within discretion; sale to Armer Farms was at market value and Armer lacked constructive knowledge of any trustee breach; solicitors did not assume de facto trusteeship and did not breach fiduciary duties or negligence; all claims dismissed and defendants awarded costs.
22 Nov 2011

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V WILTSHIRE HC HAM CIV 2010-419-1675

Citation

openlaw-afff614c_2e9c_4bc3_b910_4f00550dace2.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendant admitted liability under the guarantee and, on the evidence, the bank took commercially reasonable steps in respect of the Karapiro farm and Taotaoroa home sales and there was no duress or actionable mismanagement by receivers; the proposed amendment alleging an oral promise to advance further funds was refused as inconsistent with contemporaneous loan documents and lacking particularisation; only the Panorama beach sale raises a real issue of inadequate marketing/assistance to purchasers and may require trial, so summary judgment is appropriate in part subject to an allowance (up t…
13 Oct 2009

ALF NO 9 PTY LIMITED V PHILLIP GEORGE ELLIS, LYNLEY ANN ELLIS AND JOHN LOUIS COKER AND ORS HC WN CIV 2009-485-435

Citation

openlaw-3683942e_fa94_4ed1_9597_344741e35638.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that IBS had sold all its assets including the causes of action to NVestec in 2003 so IBS and the liquidators had no proprietary causes of action to assign in 2009; accordingly the Assignment Deed was void as purporting to assign assets IBS did not own, and the statement of claim was struck out; PPSA s87 did not save the assignment factually because legal title had passed in 2003; additionally the funding arrangement in its present form constituted an abuse of process but strike out was ordered primarily because there were no causes of action to assign.
18 Dec 2008

CROWN MONEY CORPORATION LTD V A P PINK-MARTIN AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-000297

Citation

openlaw-b1bc1f4f_c79f_4a3f_9890_0923702cdb5a.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to bring the review out of time was granted but the review was dismissed because the defendant failed to adduce valuation or other admissible evidence proving on the balance of probabilities that the mortgagee's sale was at an undervalue; the marketing and valuation steps taken were adequate and the price reflected the market.
1 Jun 2006

PORTER HIRE LIMITED V BLANCHETT AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-3056

Citation

openlaw-e90a40fd_106c_4c97_bb71_eb2474b57883.pdf
Court

High Court

Measured against the actual liquidation, the Court found the four $24,000 payments were part of the existing unusual but ongoing trading pattern and therefore in the ordinary course and not voidable; payments made directly by Manson were payments on behalf of Yukich, were not in the ordinary course and were voidable preferences; Porter Hire could not establish the s296(3) defence for the Manson payments because it failed to prove a reasonable belief in the transaction's validity; substituted-security argument on the machinery sale was not permitted to be advanced late and, on the evidence, Po…