New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Voidable transactions

Legal area

Court

18 Oct 2023

FRANCIS v DEGREE PLUMBING LTD [2023] NZHC 2920

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2920
Court

High Court

Payments of $37,466.57 were insolvent transactions made within the restricted period and must be set aside; Degree Plumbing cannot establish s 296(3)(b) because a reasonable person in its position would have had reasonable grounds to suspect insolvency given it served a statutory demand and initiated liquidation proceedings against Podular Housing; residual discretion to refuse recovery was not exercised because allowing retention would undermine creditor parity; accordingly repayment plus interest ordered.
3 May 2023

FALLOON v HANSEN [2023] NZHC 1038

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1038
Court

High Court

Because respondents failed to file defences or take steps after objection, the liquidator's notices under ss 294-295 were effective and default judgments were entered for the liquidated amounts sought; the transaction involving Amber Hansen was set aside and costs were awarded on a 2B basis.
6 Apr 2023

WHITLEY v SDCIC NZ ARCHITECTURE LTD [2023] NZHC 785

Citation

[2023] NZHC 785
Court

High Court

Award standard 2B costs: SDCIC must pay liquidator costs and disbursements; Mr Wu entitled only to standard 2B costs and disbursements from the liquidator; rejected claim for two separate notices/affidavits and rejected uplifted costs for unreasonable refusal to settle because offers were late, the liquidator engaged and had statutory duties and the case was not hopeless.
3 Feb 2023

DALTON v MICO DEVELOPMENT LIMITED [2023] NZHC 95

Citation

[2023] NZHC 95
Court

High Court

Leave to accept the late statement of defence was refused and the plaintiffs were entitled to proceed towards liquidation because the Court had already determined Mico owed substantial sums arising from voidable transactions, there were no available assets to satisfy the judgment, the defendant's alteration of position defence had been rejected previously and overlapped with considerations relevant to resisting liquidation, and allowing the late defence would deprive plaintiffs of the benefit of their judgment.
14 Nov 2022

JINDAL v ORANGE CAPITAL LTD [2022] NZCA 540

Citation

[2022] NZCA 540
Court

Court of Appeal

The claim was a common law debt action by the company in liquidation and did not invoke s301 or the voidable transaction provisions of the Companies Act 1993; therefore the District Court had jurisdiction under the District Courts Act 2016 to hear the claim, the appellant had no arguable entitlement to salary without s161 authorisation and failed to establish a credible set-off, further evidence was irrelevant to the legal issue, and the appeal is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
9 Nov 2022

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v 22 O’SHANNESSEY LIMITED &ORS [2022] NZHC 2930

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2930
Court

High Court

The Court held the Assignee satisfied threshold requirements for third‑party freezing orders: there is a good arguable case that the 2016 transfers can be cancelled under s205, that O'Shannessey could be placed in liquidation and a liquidator could seek recovery under s348 PLA, that a process may be available to oblige Maram to disgorge assets, and that there is a real danger of dissipation; accordingly freezing and ancillary orders were continued but disclosure requiring third‑party bank account numbers was removed.
18 Aug 2022

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v TUUPARI FARMS LTD (in liq) [2022] NZHC 2059

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2059
Court

High Court

Given the detailed six‑monthly reports, the draft final report, disclosure of fees throughout the liquidation, significant asset realisations and distributions to creditors, and the Commissioner’s express satisfaction, the Court was satisfied the proposed remuneration fairly and reasonably reflected the value of services rendered to the creditors and granted approval of the liquidators' fees.
4 Aug 2022

DALTON AND KEMP v MICO DEVELOPMENT LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1913

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1913
Court

High Court

Agreed direct payments by the principal to subcontractors, expressly consented to as deductions from amounts payable to the contractor, are 'payments' and therefore transactions by the company under s292(3) and recoverable under s295. By contrast, unilateral 'descoping' deductions and speculative defects retentions that were disputed and not the product of the contractual valuation process are not transactions by the company for the purposes of s292(3) and thus are not caught by the voidable transaction regime. The respondent failed to establish the s296(3) good faith defence because a reason…
30 Jun 2022

WHITLEY v SDCIC NZ ARCHITECTURE LTD [2022] NZHC 1528

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1528
Court

High Court

The Court found the vehicle was conveyed to SDCIC (through its sole director) not to Mr Wu personally; SDCIC was a creditor of Ezybuilding Group and, by receiving $20,000 and the vehicle within the restricted period when the company was insolvent, received more than it would in liquidation. The transfers were therefore voidable and, as SDCIC did not object to the notice, automatically set aside as against it. The Court exercised its discretion under s295 to order SDCIC to repay $20,000 and to pay an amount fairly representing the benefit received from the vehicle transaction ($25,240). The ap…
16 Dec 2021

GAUTAM JINDAL v ORANGE CAPITAL LTD [2021] NZHC 3449

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3449
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal granted only on the novel jurisdictional question whether the District Court may hear a liquidator's common law debt claim against a director for an overdrawn shareholder account; all other grounds fail because the applicant's evidence is inadequate, the issues are unsuitable for a second appeal or raise no tenable legal point; stay of enforcement granted conditionally until 1 March 2022 provided the judgment sum is paid into Court and held on interest pending appeal.