Liquidators must seek a court order to recover an insolvent transaction – even where the creditor has not objected in time to a notice under section 294 of the Companies Act.

The importance of following the prescribed procedure was recently reinforced by the High Court.¹

We look at the decision and the conclusions to be drawn from it.

The case

The High Court has held that liquidators cannot rely on the common law to recover insolvent transactions, and must now proceed under the statutory provisions of the Companies Act.

In Grant v Lotus Gardens Limited, the liquidators of Quantum Grow Limited applied unsuccessfully for an order that Lotus Gardens Limited be put into liquidation on the grounds that it was unable to pay its debts, asserting that Lotus Gardens owed it $25,000 being the amount of preferential payments made to them.

Receivers are well aware that they can limit or exclude their personal liability on a contract by appropriately worded language, in accordance with the Receiverships Act. But what about litigation? Is a receiver sufficiently protected against a personal costs award if the litigation is in the name of the company rather than the receiver?

The “good faith” defence for creditors facing insolvent transaction claims has now been fully explored by the Court of Appeal in two separate judgments relating to the Farrell v Fences and Kerbs Limited¹ litigation – and has been confirmed on all points to have narrow application.

Confirmation by the Court of Appeal that “accounts receivable” are more than just book debts and include other legally enforceable monetary obligations owed to a company will provide welcome certainty to receivers and liquidators.

The issue is significant because it determines the assets available to pay preferential claims.

In Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Property Ventures Limited (in Liq & In Rec), the liquidator of Property Ventures Limited (in liq and rec) obtained orders requiring the New Zealand Police to produce computer equipment holding certain company records. The Police obtained the relevant information from the offices of a Mr Henderson, following a complaint by the liquidator alleging a failure to comply with notices issued under section 261 of the Companies Act 1993. 

On 25 July 2013 the Court of Appeal issued its final judgment in Farrell v Fences & Kerbs Limited [2013] NZCA 329. The final judgment related to three conjoined appeals in which an interim judgment had been delivered on 27 March 2013 (Farrell v Fences & Kerbs Limited [2013] 3 NZLR 82). The interim judgment held that to rely on the defence to setting aside a voidable transaction in section 296(3)(c) of the Companies Act 1993 "new value" was required to be given at the time the payment that is sought to be set aside was made.

Syntax Holdings (Auckland) Ltd (in liquidation) v Bishop involved a claim by the liquidators of Syntax Holdings (Auckland) Ltd that Mr and Mrs Bishop (as directors) had breached certain duties to the company (and its creditors) under the Companies Act 1993.

In Dench v Gates, the New Zealand High Court considered its inherent jurisdiction to set aside a bankruptcy notice to prevent an abuse of process. Mrs Gates, the judgment debtor, had applied to the High Court to set aside a bankruptcy notice. The bankruptcy notice was based on an award of costs against Mrs Gates in respect of earlier District Court litigation initiated by her against Mr Dench, a solicitor, on the basis that he had conducted himself dishonestly while representing his client in a separate matter, in which Mrs Gates was the plaintiff.

Tegel sought summary judgment against Mr and Mrs Arnensen as guarantors of the obligations of Coastal Cuisine NZ Limited (In Receivership). The Arnensen's argued (in reliance on the equitable doctrine of marshalling) that Tegel ought not to be allowed to pursue the guarantees until the receivership of Coastal Cuisine had run its course.