The recent case ofBay Flight 2012 Limited v Flight Care Limited is a reminder that holders of common law liens must take care to ensure that their lien is not extinguished by giving up possession.
In a decision concerning the expiry of a subordination agreement, the High Court has indicated that the priority of competing security interests is to be determined at the time the competing interests come in to conflict.
In Simpson v Commission of Inland Revenue (2012) 25 NZTC 20-119 (CA) the Court of Appeal held that receivers of a mortgagee which is not registered for GST must still account to Inland Revenue for GST on a mortgagee sale. This decision is controversial and pending possible resolution of the matter by an appeal to the Supreme Court, receivers of mortgagees that are not registered for GST should take legal advice as to how they should best proceed.
It’s now official. Priority between competing security interests under the Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA) is assessed at the time those interests come into conflict. This will usually, but not always, be when receivers are appointed.
The PPSA is silent on the issue but the general view, now confirmed by the High Court, has been that the rule established in the Canadian Sperry1 case is the correct approach.
In this case Westpac sought to have joint debtors Thomas and Sheena Fuller adjudicated bankrupt.
In Re Hurlstone Earthmoving Limited (in receivership and liquidation): Petterson v Gothard (No 3) [2012] NZHC 666, the liquidator of Hurlstone Earthmoving Limited sought orders under section 37 of the Receiverships Act 1993 compelling the receivers to provide company documents and information about the company's affairs after they had failed to comply with a notice under section 261 of the Companies Act 1993.
In the case of In Re Silverdale Developments (2007) Ltd (In Liq): Bunting v Buchanan [2012] NZHC 766, the shareholders of Silver Developments (2007) Limited (in liquidation) unsuccessfully applied to the Court to terminate the liquidation under section 250 of the Companies Act 1993.
In Sea Management Singapore Pte Ltd v Professional Service Brokers Ltd, SEA, a 50% shareholder in PSB, applied to put PSB into liquidation due to the irreconcilable deadlock SEA claimed existed at both board and shareholder levels over the direction of Conexa, a PSB subsidiary. Associate Judge Bell dismissed the application, holding that it was not just and equitable to order liquidation when a reasonable option existed in the constitution, or under the shareholders' agreement.
In Wilson v APG Holdings Ltd (In Liquidation), Mrs Rita Wilson (Mrs W) received amounts totalling approximately $1m from APG Holdings Limited (in liquidation) (APG) of which her husband, Mr Terry Wilson (Mr W), was a director. In a defence against a summary judgment application, Mrs W argued in the HC that the amounts in question were payments of Mr W's salary from APG, that she had not borrowed any money from APG and that the payments did not fall within the scope of section 298(2) of the Companies Act 1993 (CA 93).
This case involved a claim under section 294 of the Companies Act 1993 by the liquidators of Five Star Finance Limited (in liquidation) (FSF) against a trustee of a trading trust (Bowden No. 14 Trust (Trust)) to set aside payments amounting to $928,937.79. These payments were part of a large number of payments, not just from FSF to the Trust, but also from the Trust to FSF.