New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Struck off company

Legal area

Court

16 Jul 2018

ORION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v THE CROWN [2018] NZHC 1750

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1750
Court

High Court

Where a registered proprietor mistakenly appears in the sale documentation but the registered proprietor received the purchase price and intended to transfer, the proprietor can be treated as holding the property on resulting or constructive trust for the purchaser and the court may vest the land in the purchaser under s 52(1)(b)(iv) of the Trustee Act 1956; applying that principle the land was vested in Orion.
8 May 2013

YORKE V DE GOEY HC WHA CIV 2013-488-00261

Citation

openlaw-f81a29ed_1b0c_4e6b_8dc4_16eee96a4313.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the company's assets vested in the Crown on striking off, the Court exercised its statutory power under s 324(4) to vest the property in the applicant because she would have been entitled to distribution, relevant parties consented, and the order was appropriately conditioned to protect ANZ's mortgage.
11 Dec 2012

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND V CRISFORD TRUSTEE LIMITED (1689149) (STRUCK OFF) HC AK CIV-2012-404-6135

Citation

openlaw-6f5f7472_2b45_4c9c_befe_19c801dee17d.pdf
Court

High Court

The costs order was an accidental slip and must be corrected under the Court's jurisdiction to amend sealed judgments (per Willcocks v Teat); because Mrs Crisford did not participate she must be removed from the costs order and liability confined to Mr Crisford, who is ordered to pay costs on a 2B basis and reasonable disbursements.
5 Dec 2012

RE THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED HC ROT CIV-2012-463-95

Citation

openlaw-bf674aec_9b98_488a_9426_94cc35e1331b.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the former trustee was struck off the Companies Register, the applicant demonstrated entitlement to appointment under s 51 and to vest the specified unit title under s 52, beneficiaries were served and did not oppose, and the supporting affidavit established grounds for the orders; therefore the Court granted the appointment and vesting orders.
3 Aug 2009

SINGH AND SINGH V INDIAN WEDDING SUPPLIES LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV 2008-404-005050

Citation

openlaw-b41a310b_80e7_4cf3_a7a3_98137332e7a7.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court refused judicial review: the Tribunal did not commit material errors of law warranting intervention when it ordered a rehearing and joined the plaintiffs given the small‑claims statutory focus on substantial merits and justice (s18(6)), and any defect in the claimant's corporate status did not produce a substantial wrong to the plaintiffs; the District Court correctly applied its limited appellate jurisdiction. The Tribunal order of 27 March 2007 stands, subject to administrative sealing pending possible restoration of the struck‑off company.
15 Jul 2009

Q MIAO V UNIFIN INTERNATIONAL FINANCE GROUP LIMITED (STRUCK OFF) HC AK CIV 2009-404-003926

Citation

openlaw-5adf76d5_d4e1_4b8d_8f97_2b243c62c760.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the respondent company had been struck off and ceased to exist and no proof of service could be given on the caveator as required by s 143(2), the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed against the non‑existent company and the originating application was struck out; the residual discretion to remove the caveat was not exercised because the Court could not be satisfied that creditors or the reinstated company would not be prejudiced.
7 Dec 2006

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V RAPTURE HOLDINGS LIMITED (STRUCK OFF) HC AK CIV 2006-404-004443

Citation

openlaw-990e0b00_aa20_4e17_a485_b6f6a988ca13.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendant's partial payment and acceptance of a settlement constituted an implied admission of the debt, therefore the court exercised its discretion to award costs to the Commissioner on a 2B basis and ordered disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar; the proceeding was withdrawn by leave.
4 Oct 2005

RE EDWARDS HC TAU CIV 2005-470-684

Citation

openlaw-e4131e98_0933_45c7_90eb_d34b2292e0a1.pdf
Court

High Court

Evidence established that the struck off company held the property on trust for the applicants, the Registrar had no interest in opposing vesting, and there was no likelihood of prejudice; accordingly the court exercised its power under s 52 to vest the property in the applicants and dispensed with service.