In a judgment issued yesterday (Francis v Gross [2024] NZCA 528), the Court of Appeal unanimously overturned the controversial High Court decision in Francis v Gross [2023] NZHC 1107 and held that purchasers of partly constructed modular buildings (pods) did not have equitable liens (at all, and especially not in priority to secured creditors) over those pods.
This morning, after much anticipation, the Supreme Court has released its judgment in Yan v Mainzeal Property Construction Limited (in liq) [2023] NZSC 113, largely upholding the Court of Appeal's decision, and awarding damages of $39.8m against the directors collectively, with specified limits for certain directors. The decision signals that a strong emphasis on 'creditor protection' is now embedded in New Zealand company law.
In recent years much ink has been spilled opining on the so called 'Quincecare' duty of care, and the limits of it (see links to our recent insolvency law updates covering the topic below). The judgment in Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All ER 363 was a first instance decision on Steyn J, in which he found that a bank has a duty not to execute a payment instruction given by an agent of its customer without making inquiries if the bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the agent is attempting to defraud the customer.
In the recent case of Re JD Group Ltd in liquidation; Bhatia v Purkiss (as liquidator of JD Group Ltd) a company director appealed a decision that he was liable for VAT fraud.
Background
Mr Bhatia was the sole director of a company trading in mobile phones. He was sent a HMRC notice explaining the risks of mobile phone trading and liability for involvement in VAT fraud.
In times of economic uncertainty, fraud typically increases. And these are certainly economically uncertain times. Fraud has been on the rise over recent years and that trend is set to continue. The motivation and opportunity to commit fraud increases as financial pressures loom over individuals and businesses. We are also set to see a continued increase in insolvencies as the impact of the pandemic and other global events set in. The appointment of insolvency practitioners means frauds which might have otherwise continued or remained concealed are more likely to be uncovered.
While an insolvency process is not always welcomed with open arms, in fraud cases it can play a key role in uncovering frauds that might otherwise have remained concealed and may result in recoveries for victims. This is because an insolvency process paves the way for an independent investigation into the company's affairs and the directors' conduct to be carried out by an insolvency practitioner (IP).
The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.
The Supreme Court has unanimously dismissed the appeal of the decision in BTI –v- Sequana.
At a time when many companies are facing financial difficulties and directors are considering their legal duties, this long-awaited judgment has confirmed that directors have a 'creditor interest duty' when a company is insolvent or bordering on insolvency or an insolvent liquidation or administration is probable.
Background
The United Kingdom Supreme Court has just released an important insolvency judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (Sequana), which concerns when and the extent to which directors of a company must consider the interests of creditors.
In Stratford Hamilton (joint liquidator of Mobigo Ltd (in liquidation)) v James Mcateer, Teresa Delgaudio [2022] the court dismissed the directors' application to strike out misfeasance claims against them.
Background