New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Shareholder dispute

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2023

MAK v LUMENOSITY LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2386

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2386
Court

High Court

Leave to commence summary judgment was refused because the plaintiffs' reliance on contemporaneous emails did not constitute sufficiently clear admissions and their claim was not presently sufficiently clear to justify summary disposal; the application for separate questions was adjourned to allow parties to address the evident overlap of issues and pursue pragmatic resolution including sale/mediation and a short teleconference to set directions.
4 Apr 2023

HOLMES v CANTERBURY PROPERTY SERVICES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 732

Citation

[2023] NZHC 732
Court

High Court

The court found no good reason for the second defendant or his solicitors to refuse to accept service, his conduct supported the applicant's claim of a breakdown in relations, and an award of costs was appropriate but not an uplift; therefore the second defendant must pay the applicant's costs on a 2A basis plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.
24 Mar 2023

YINJI ZHENG v JUN YUE INVESTMENT LIMITED [2023] NZHC 616

Citation

[2023] NZHC 616
Court

High Court

The court refused to block payment of the disputed legal invoices because r 32.6(3) permits payment of legal expenses related to freezing orders and blocking payment would likely prejudice the company's ability to participate in the consolidated hearing; the court left open the power to order later repayment if a conflict or improper attribution of fees is established and fixed costs on a 2B basis to the successful party on the application to restrain the solicitors.
22 Feb 2023

ANDREWS v LOMAX [2023] NZHC 268

Citation

[2023] NZHC 268
Court

High Court

There was a clearly arguable case that the $71,260.82 transfer was unauthorised and, having regard to the balance of convenience and that the funds had not been dissipated, the appropriate interim remedy was to preserve the funds by ordering they be held in Fortune Manning Lawyers' trust account pending further order or written agreement of the parties.
14 Nov 2022

VIRANDA PARTNERS LIMITED v GUEST [2022] NZHC 2957

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2957
Court

High Court

The court held s165(3)(b) was satisfied and granted leave: given VPL's dysfunction, cessation of trading, lack of secure funding and real risk the fixture would be jeopardised if informal support ended, it was in VPL's interests that conduct of proceedings not be left to its directors/shareholders; Veritas' funding regularised the situation and the likelihood of success and cost‑benefit supported granting leave, subject to limiting conditions and reporting requirements.
11 Aug 2022

CHIEM v FORDYCE COMPANY LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1978

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1978
Court

High Court

The plaintiff acted as an on‑site representative but did not assume the role of project manager nor possess special skill; qualified consultants were engaged and led the technical work; accordingly no duty of care, as alleged, was established and, in any event, material breach and causation were not proved, so both the claim and counterclaim fail.
8 Apr 2022

NICOLA BAXTER v SUPERSCAPES LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES LIMITED [2022] NZHC 726

Citation

[2022] NZHC 726
Court

High Court

On the evidence the mutual trust and confidence between the 50/50 shareholders had irretrievably broken down and there was a real risk of dissipation and diversion of company assets exposing creditors to loss; accordingly an interim liquidator was necessary to preserve the company's assets and protect creditor interests, and Damien Mitchell Grant (licensed insolvency practitioner) was appointed.
29 Mar 2022

BO SI LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v CRUSADERS BUILDING DEVELOPMENT LIMITED & ORS [2022] NZHC 592

Citation

[2022] NZHC 592
Court

High Court

The adjournment was declined because the related shareholder proceedings will not resolve the plaintiff's creditor status, prompt resolution of winding-up applications is required, and the second defendant's preference to control any sale is insufficient justification for delay.
11 Mar 2022

GREEN v GILLETTE [2022] NZCA 49

Citation

[2022] NZCA 49
Court

Court of Appeal

The strike-out application was dismissed because the delays had been examined and explained in the Court's recall judgment, the appellant was not in continuing default of procedural directions, striking out for lack of diligence would conflict with the recall decision permitting the appeal to proceed, and although the appeal's prospects are weak it is not frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process since it is not certain to fail.
11 Aug 2021

MIRZA v SINGH and GAIKWAD [2021] NZHC 2081

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2081
Court

High Court

There was a serious issue to be tried under s174 given expert and accounting evidence of significant unexplained discrepancies; the balance of convenience and overall justice required preservation of the status quo pending an independent forensic investigation because removal of the plaintiff as director would impede necessary inquiries and could not be adequately remedied by damages; accordingly interim relief restraining removal and preserving funds in solicitors' trust was justified and granted.