New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Shareholder current accounts

Legal area

Court

8 Aug 2022

THE BEER SPOT LIMITED v PAYN [2022] NZHC 1941

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1941
Court

High Court

Approved financial statements and shareholder resolutions recorded the shareholder current accounts as liabilities; absent contemporaneous evidence or independent accounting corroboration the applicants could not rebut the presumption that the balances were debts payable on demand; no sufficiently clear evidence of an implied agreement restricting withdrawals; no exceptional grounds to exercise s 290(4)(c) discretion; application to set aside statutory demands dismissed, limited extension for compliance ordered.
24 Jul 2018

FBB HOLDINGS LIMITED (in liquidation) v MCGRATH [2018] NZHC 1786

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1786
Court

High Court

The application for summary judgment was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to discharge the burden of showing the defendant had no defence; there remained real doubt and uncertainty about the accuracy and completeness of the company's records as at the date of liquidation (records after 31 March 2015 unauthenticated and relevant material not produced) and the disputed adjustments could not be resolved on summary judgment without discovery.
14 Feb 2018

RFD PLUMBING LIMITED (in liq) v DYHRBERG [2019] NZHC 151

Citation

[2019] NZHC 151
Court

High Court

The signed 31 March 2016 financial statements provided strong evidence of the defendants' debts; the defendants failed to provide credible, specific, contemporaneous evidence of post-statement adjustments or set-offs or to show the liquidator was given material justifying adjustment; therefore there was no real issue to be tried and summary judgment was granted for the stated sums with interest and costs.
30 Jun 2016

CGES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND RECEIVERSHIP) v KELLY [2016] NZHC 1465

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1465
Court

High Court

Directors knowingly allowed the company to trade while insolvent, made personal withdrawals and failed to meet tax obligations, thereby breaching duties under ss 131,135,136 and 137; as a result they are jointly and severally liable to repay the overdrawn shareholder current accounts ($262,073) and to contribute to the company's losses under s 301 ($301,256); interest and costs follow.
20 Apr 2016

2687b458-0523-4abd-86e3-8bc87a325fbd.pdf

Citation

openlaw-34f28537_e2bc_473a_ac1a_159859dca559.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that, after accepting a single accounting adjustment, the undisputed amount of Coghlan's shareholder current account was $211,252; Coghlan retained standing to enforce that debt because there was no evidence of assignment or notice; he validly called up the advances and served a statutory demand; Coastal Scaffolding failed to establish a substantial dispute or other grounds under s 290 to set the demand aside; accordingly the statutory demand was set aside except as to $211,252 and the company was ordered to pay that sum within the time ordered, with no costs awarded due to imp…
11 Nov 2015

HARRISON v KEOGH [2015] NZHC 2791

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2791
Court

High Court

The ROS and subsequent 2012 accounting communications constituted either an implied contractual term and/or promissory estoppel that entitled and required WCHL to pay Mr Keogh US$52,312.26 on liquidation distributions as shown in the 2012 accounts; WCHL and Mr Harrison were estopped and in breach by causing payment to Channor and withholding payment to Mr Keogh; the 2013 revised accounts could not be relied on to claw back prior accepted account positions and the counterclaim was dismissed.
9 Dec 2009

PRIDHAM V PRIDHAM HC AK CIV-2009-404-4758

Citation

openlaw-255972ed_b959_4fdd_bb49_767925444bf6.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 6 of the contracting out agreement is properly read to deem the Stredwick Drive property to have been intended to be shared half each on separation regardless of subsequent transfer; therefore proceeds represented by the respondent's Jenjoco shareholder current account are relationship property and to be equally divided. The BNZ account balances were found on the evidence (and the Family Court judge's credibility assessment) to be proceeds of the respondent's pre-marriage separate investment in Macks Seafood and remain his separate property. Occupational rent was not justified on the f…
8 Nov 2006

LOWE V LOWE TOURIST PROMOTION COMPANY LIMITED HC BLE CIV-2006-406-000219

Citation

openlaw-9b7bf355_3c01_4b6e_bd08_3360895ebd15.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment and interim payment were refused because the company accounts are unreliable and in disarray, the defendant has a clearly arguable defence and is undertaking reconstruction of records, the plaintiff has not adequately cooperated with that process, and an interim payment risks creating a creditor preference if insolvency is established.