New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Valuation of business

Legal area

Court

6 Oct 2021

REYNOLDS v FINNIGAN and VAN DELDEN [2021] NZHC 2668

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2668
Court

High Court

The court ordered a separate preliminary hearing on (1) the market value of the business on 9 March 2018 and (2) the best price reasonably obtainable by the receivers because the valuation issue is separable from liability, a clear demarcation can be made between measures of loss against receivers and other defendants, the likely time and cost savings justify a split hearing given the modest sums in issue, and practical arrangements were put in place to manage appeals and timetable.
9 Jul 2009

GJ INGRAM & E BEVAN AND ANOR V PATCROFT PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-4171

Citation

openlaw-656d9be3_9580_4132_bcbf_3a492348b29f.pdf
Court

High Court

The lessor's re-entry on 14 June 2005 was unlawful because it preceded the 14-day arrears period in the lease; any purported distraint was invalid once re-entry occurred; set-off was barred by lease terms and prior arbitral/Court rulings; plaintiffs were not obliged in the circumstances to seek immediate relief against forfeiture; company losses were treated as losses of the first plaintiffs on Esso/assignment principles; accordingly plaintiffs recover assessed business-damage sums (first plaintiffs NZD136,597.55; second plaintiff NZD162,935.04) and the lessor succeeds on its counterclaim in…
23 Jan 2007

BODY RADIANCE LTD V HETARAKA HC AK CIV 2005-404-7285

Citation

openlaw-631c2594_5852_49c0_9daa_7dcaa94a5391.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied there were grounds to believe relevant financial statements, tax returns and solicitors' file documents existed and had not been disclosed; those documents for the years ending 31 March 2003 and 31 March 2004 and solicitors' file materials relating to the sale and lease were relevant to the valuation/misrepresentation issue and an order under r300 was necessary, so discovery was ordered limited to those documents with reservation for further discovery on accountant affidavit.
28 Nov 2006

HUTT V HODGE HC TAU CIV 2006-470-276

Citation

openlaw-01ba78e2_59ea_4f43_a72b_5e1a334a9c25.pdf
Court

High Court

Section 18C was correctly interpreted to require deliberate action or inaction causally linked to a material diminution in value without requiring a specific intention to cause that diminution; on the evidence the Family Court could properly infer that the appellant's actions and inactions (assisting and not discouraging his son's takeover, letters to customers, allowing use of premises and technical assistance) caused SVCL to be reduced from a going concern to little more than stock and equipment and ordered compensation; the transfer of the boat was a sham to defeat creditors and constitute…

New Zealand Case Law

REYNOLDS v FINNIGAN and VAN DELDEN [2021] NZHC 2668

GJ INGRAM & E BEVAN AND ANOR V PATCROFT PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-4171

BODY RADIANCE LTD V HETARAKA HC AK CIV 2005-404-7285

HUTT V HODGE HC TAU CIV 2006-470-276