New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Shareholders' current account

Legal area

Court

3 May 2022

PACIFIC PLUMBING SERVICES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v ARCHIBALD [2022] NZHC 907 [3 May 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 907
Court

High Court

The court entered summary judgment against the second defendant for $286,488 because the liquidator identified, with confidence from bank statement narrations, payments solely and jointly for the defendant's benefit, the defendant offered no arguable defence, and the sums are recoverable as advances, with interest under s10 Interest on Money Claims Act 2006 and costs awarded.
30 Aug 2019

SANDFIELD ASSOCIATES LTD v MONNERY [2019] NZHC 2151

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2151
Court

High Court

Convendium proved an overdrawn shareholders' current account to at least $512,346.73 by reliance on signed pre‑liquidation accounts, tax returns and identifiable bank payments; s301 was inapplicable to this ordinary debt claim; the defendants' assertions about agreed salary/drawings and related litigation did not disclose an arguable defence or justify withholding summary judgment; judgment entered for Convendium with interest from the liquidators' demand date.
2 Nov 2016

SUPERIOR BLOCKLAYERS LTD (In liq) v BACON [2016] NZHC 2601

Citation

(2016) 14 TCLR 425
Court

High Court

Directors allowed the company to trade while insolvent from at least 31 May 2009, repeatedly failed to remit GST and took substantial undocumented drawings, thereby breaching ss 131, 135 and 137; those breaches causally produced the creditor losses and liquidation costs, warranting full s 301 contribution of $96,175.95 and repayment of the shareholders' current account $63,819.
19 Apr 2016

COASTAL SCAFFOLDING LIMITED v COGHLAN [2016] NZHC 751

Citation

[2016] NZHC 751
Court

High Court

The court found no substantial dispute and no other grounds under s 290(4) to set aside the demand: the respondent had standing to enforce his shareholders' current account, there was no evidence of assignment or of a binding agreement preventing withdrawal on demand, the effective call up was valid, and the correct undisputed amount was $211,252; accordingly the statutory demand is set aside except as to $211,252 and the company must pay that sum within the ordered time or face liquidation proceedings.
9 Oct 2013

LALI MEDIA GROUP LIMITED v MOALA [2013] NZHC 2612

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2612
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused because the defendants raised credible, arguable factual matters (notably documentary evidence supporting payment in the defamation proceeding) such that the plaintiff did not discharge the onus of showing there was no real question to be tried; interlocutory procedures including discovery and non-party discovery were necessary and the matter must proceed to trial.
17 Jun 2011

READY MARK LIMITED V JILL GRANT HC AK CIV 2010-404-008264

Citation

openlaw-cd2df2bf_a65f_4cdb_ae34_0b35f80ee7c2.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court struck out the plaintiff's claims because the Family Court had already taken the alleged debts into account and valued them as irrecoverable in fixing relationship property entitlements; the plaintiff is the privy/alter ego of Mr Grant and therefore bound by that outcome; allowing the company to pursue these claims would unlawfully relitigate and upset the Family Court distribution and constitute an abuse of process.
2 Aug 2010

C-DAX LIMITED V W E AND L FRANKLIN AS TRUSTEES OF SYDNEY HOUSE TRUST AT PALMERSTON NORTH HC PMN CIV 2009-454-000513

Citation

openlaw-20c58079_33dd_4de0_ad8d_d767e21a6380.pdf
Court

High Court

The Associate Judge's costs decision was set aside because it relied on two determinations that were either irrelevant or plainly wrong: that the respondents were slow to concede and that they acted incautiously in issuing the statutory demand. The decisive Deed of Subordination was produced by the applicant only one day before hearing; the respondents were entitled to adjournments and could not reasonably be held to have known of the Deed; accordingly the applicant must pay the respondents' assessed costs and the respondents are awarded costs for the successful review.

New Zealand Case Law

PACIFIC PLUMBING SERVICES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v ARCHIBALD [2022] NZHC 907 [3 May 2022]

SANDFIELD ASSOCIATES LTD v MONNERY [2019] NZHC 2151

SUPERIOR BLOCKLAYERS LTD (In liq) v BACON [2016] NZHC 2601

COASTAL SCAFFOLDING LIMITED v COGHLAN [2016] NZHC 751

LALI MEDIA GROUP LIMITED v MOALA [2013] NZHC 2612

READY MARK LIMITED V JILL GRANT HC AK CIV 2010-404-008264

C-DAX LIMITED V W E AND L FRANKLIN AS TRUSTEES OF SYDNEY HOUSE TRUST AT PALMERSTON NORTH HC PMN CIV 2009-454-000513