Burns & Agnew v Commissioner of the Inland Revenue and Strategic Finance Limited (in rec) concerned a dispute between a secured creditor and the IRD (as a preferential creditor) in respect of certain funds received by the liquidators of Takapuna Procurement Limited (TPL).  The liquidators applied to the High Court for directions as to the application of those funds and this required the Court to undertake an analysis of the concept of an "account receivable" for the purposes of determining whether such funds could be applied to satisfy preferential claims under the Seventh

Resource consents and environmental risks can affect the value of an insolvent company's assets, and can give rise to civil or criminal liability.

This Brief Counsel examines:

• when resource consents require transfer to a new owner, and
• potential liabilities that insolvency practitioners may face.

Types of consents

Five types of consent are available under the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA):

A lien is the right to hold on to goods, and in some cases sell them, in order to ensure payment.  Often the debt will be connected with services related to the goods.

A lien can be obtained by contract, or in certain specific situations the law creates it automatically.  The difference can be significant.

Under the Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA), the holder of a common law or statutory lien may in some cases have special priority over a company’s secured creditors.

Types of lien

Just what is an account receivable has been the subject of much debate, because it determines what assets are used to satisfy preferential claims, i.e. who gets paid first in a receivership or liquidation.  In 2008, the High Court judgment in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Northshore Taverns (in liq) confined “accounts receivable” to “book debts”.  Although since criticised, that judgment was the only judicial authority on the point.

The government placed the Hubbards, their companies (Aorangi Securities and Hubbard Management Funds), and seven charitable trusts in statutory management in June 2010. 

Simpson and Downes v CIR involved an application by receivers for directions under section 34 of the Receiverships Act 1993 in relation to whether the receivers of a mortgagee were personally liable to account for GST on the supply of six properties sold by the receivers at mortgagee sale.

In Jordan and Vance v First City (in liquidation ) & Gore Street (in liquidation), the liquidators of Gore Street applied for a pooling order that the liquidation of the two defendants, First City and Gore Street, proceed as if they were one company.

(High Court Auckland, CIV 2010-404-6381, 8 April 2011, Associate Judge Matthews)

In ASB Bank Limited v Hall, the High Court confirmed that a bank does not owe a duty of care to a creditor, director or shareholder of a customer of the bank. 

The recent case of Re Armitage, ex parte Established Investments Limited (in liquidation) considered an objection by the Official Assignee to Mr Armitage's automatic discharge from bankruptcy. 

Levin v Rastkar involved an appeal against a High Court decision dismissing an application by the liquidators of Western Clothing Limited to set aside several transactions by Western alleged to be voidable under section 292 of the Companies Act 1993 (in its previous form).