New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Transfer of shares

Legal area

Court

10 Aug 2023

JAMES HOWARD NIGEL SMALLEY v GRANT ROBERT WILLIAMSON, IAN PERRY, DAVID MICHAEL HAYES, GRANT TREVOR DAVIES and JEREMY DANIEL SULLIVAN [2023] NZSC 101

Citation

[2023] NZSC 101
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal denied because both the High Court and Court of Appeal concluded the EY valuation complied with the agreed terms of reference, the parties had contractually agreed to be bound by that independent valuation and not to challenge it, and the matter does not raise questions of general or public importance nor a realistic risk of miscarriage of justice under s 74 of the Senior Courts Act 2016.
9 May 2023

WANG v GUANGZHOU DONGJIANG PETROLEUM SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD [2023] NZHC 1087

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1087
Court

High Court

The beneficial interest in the One Pure 25% shareholding remains with Mr Kang because clause 12 of the shareholders agreement does not automatically effect a transfer of beneficial ownership without provision for consideration or a proper transfer mechanism; clause 12 required a transfer notice in accordance with the company constitution (which does not exist) and contemplated purchase or liquidation mechanisms, so the interim charging order should not be varied to exclude the One Pure shareholding.
28 Feb 2023

CORSTON v JOHN CURTIS LIMITED [2023] NZHC 339

Citation

[2023] NZHC 339
Court

High Court

The court held the transfer was invalid because Pamela only held a life interest and therefore lacked the right to dispose of the shares; Joanna's opposition lacked merit and unjustifiably delayed return of the shares, so costs are awarded to the plaintiff on a 2B basis without an uplift.
11 Nov 2021

MILLER v WAIPOUA LAND LTD [2021] NZHC 3041

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3041
Court

High Court

The originating application for rectification was granted because probate established the applicant's authority as executor, the company shares are assets of the deceased's estate, no competing interest was identified, and it was appropriate to grant leave to commence by originating application and to dispense with service to effect rectification of the share register.
23 May 2018

SMITH v BALL [2018] NZHC 1140

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1140
Court

High Court

The court rebutted the presumption that the plaintiff must pay all costs on discontinuance and awarded the plaintiff costs and disbursements directly related to the summary judgment application because the plaintiff obtained the relief sought on that application, but reserved all other costs and disbursements pending determination of the substantive proceeding.
19 Dec 2017

SMITH v BALL [2017] NZHC 3231

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3231
Court

High Court

Leave to file a notice of opposition and statement of defence was granted because the delay was short, a satisfactory explanation was provided, and the plaintiff would not suffer prejudice, so the interests of justice required granting leave and adjourning the summary judgment application.
29 Apr 2016

ALEXANDER CRAIG BURNSIDE v ROBERT JAMES BURNSIDE [2016] NZHC 843

Citation

[2016] NZHC 843
Court

High Court

Application for an early separate hearing was refused because the applicant failed to discharge the heavy onus to show that claim and counterclaim could more fairly or conveniently be tried separately: significant risk of overlapping evidence and issues, limited urgency given available fixture in August 2016, no convincing time or cost savings, and better outcome achieved by hearing claim and counterclaim together; court therefore directed combined hearing and gave pre-trial directions.
17 Nov 2008

HANNAM V HERD HC AK CIV 2008-404-5195

Citation

openlaw-0273d97f_f96a_4acd_8876_85d56023b5d8.pdf
Court

High Court

Contemporaneous documentary evidence (including incorporation correspondence and the 21 December 2005 letter and subsequent emails) established that the defendant held the shares in Spada Limited as a bare trustee for the plaintiff; accordingly the plaintiff was entitled to an order directing transfer of all shares to him, the defendant's jurisdictional protest was dismissed, and indemnity costs were awarded because the defendant resisted transfer to obtain leverage in unrelated Vanuatu disputes.