New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Shareholding dispute

Legal area

Court

16 Dec 2022

XU v MENG [2022] NZHC 3496

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3496
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs failed to satisfy the jurisdictional threshold for joinder because their asserted claims do not sufficiently arise out of the same transaction or matter as the Bayside property purchase, evidence and particulars linking the separate transactions to that purchase are absent, some claims are personal rather than company claims and authority for companies to be joined was not demonstrated; joinder is unnecessary to determine the defendants' $200,000 deposit counterclaim and would cause delay, therefore the application for joinder is dismissed.
31 Jul 2020

IL FORNO LTD v KLEINE [2020] NZHC 1889

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1889
Court

High Court

On the evidence the $10,000 from Flow Control to Andrew was a loan and Flow Control/James did not acquire a beneficial 50% share; an enforceable remuneration arrangement for accounting/financial management existed only to a limited extent (no more than $500/month from Jan 2007 increasing to no more than $1,500/month later) and payments reflected that; the defendant breached duties by failing to keep proper accounting records and to file tax returns, causing taxable penalties and costs; Flow Control failed to prove entitlement to quantum meruit for the broad services claimed; consequential cla…
2 Aug 2018

KIPPING v SHARROCK [2018] NZCA 289

Citation

[2018] NZCA 289
Court

Court of Appeal

Extension of time under r 43 was declined because the delay was substantial with no adequate explanation, the appeal was in large part moot given the liquidation of the company, and the primary purpose appeared to be resisting a costs order rather than prosecuting a live appeal; therefore no basis to revive the abandoned appeal; appellant ordered to pay respondent costs for the application.
7 Dec 2015

MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL NZ LTD v FOSTER STREET PROPERTIES LTD [2015] NZHC 3086

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3086
Court

High Court

Miyamoto established a good arguable case to a beneficial shareholding and there is a real risk of dissipation because Central's sole significant asset is the building which is being marketed and likely to result in distribution of proceeds; balancing the parties and given applicant's undertaking as to damages, a freezing order was necessary and appropriate.
16 Jun 2011

MANNING V RAVELICH HC AK CIV-2011-404-002189

Citation

openlaw-e7b0491f_2f88_4db9_85f8_17c14edfa49e.pdf
Court

High Court

There was a serious issue to be tried regarding the defendant's asserted equitable interest, but the balance of convenience favoured refusing the injunction because shutting down the business would likely destroy its value and render the defendant's claim fruitless while the plaintiffs had invested funds, were operating the business successfully and had given an undertaking as to damages; accordingly the injunction was refused though tailored interim relief might be open on a better-founded application.
22 Nov 2007

KIWI INTERNATIONAL SOLUTIONS LTD V BAGGENSTOS HC TAU CIV 2007-470-171

Citation

openlaw-092fc343_e5c7_437c_aa8e_526566c001cc.pdf
Court

High Court

Security for costs of NZD 30,000 ordered because the plaintiff was found impecunious, failed to prove that its impecuniosity was caused by the defendant, its claim was of limited prospects on provisional assessment and shareholders gave no evidence of means; balance of justice favoured protecting defendant from unrecoverable costs.

New Zealand Case Law

XU v MENG [2022] NZHC 3496

IL FORNO LTD v KLEINE [2020] NZHC 1889

KIPPING v SHARROCK [2018] NZCA 289

MIYAMOTO INTERNATIONAL NZ LTD v FOSTER STREET PROPERTIES LTD [2015] NZHC 3086

MANNING V RAVELICH HC AK CIV-2011-404-002189

KIWI INTERNATIONAL SOLUTIONS LTD V BAGGENSTOS HC TAU CIV 2007-470-171