The appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution has generally been considered a “remedy of last resort”[1] and, for over a hundred years, courts have expressed differing views as to when they could appoint such a receiver.

The Land and Conveyancing Law Reform (Amendment) Bill 2019 (the “Bill”) proposes to broaden the factors that the courts can consider in refusing orders for possession sought by lenders.

The Bill has its roots in the Keeping People in their Homes Bill, 2018, introduced by Kevin “Boxer” Moran T.D., as a private member’s bill. However, the Bill does not go as far as Mr Moran’s bill and, for instance, does not require disclosure of the price paid by a purchaser of the loan.

Background

Overall 2018 has produced a number of positive judgments from the perspective of lenders and insolvency practitioners.

In particular, the courts delivered many useful judgments disposing of numerous challenges to the enforceability of loans and security and, also, restricting abuse of the courts’ processes.

Contemptuous McKenzie Friends

On various occasions during the periods 2012 to 2018, Shane Warner Builders Limited (SWBL) regularly failed to pay GST and PAYE to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

In January 2018 the Commissioner filed an application to put SWBL into liquidation.  The proceeding was adjourned in March 2018 whilst the Commissioner and Applicant engaged in negotiations for relief which ultimately failed due to SWBL's history of failures to pay tax arrears and failing to provide substantive supporting evidence regarding the source of funds required to settle current tax arrears. 

North Harbour Motors Limited (in liquidation) (North Harbour) issued a statutory demand against Moffat Road Limited (Moffat) in respect of two separate $30,000 deposits paid by North Harbour to Moffat on the purchase of two properties pursuant to agreements for sale and purchase dated 6 July 2015 (the Agreements).

FTG Securities Limited involved an application by FTG Securities Limited (FTG) for declarations as to the interpretation of a Deed of Priority.  The Deed of Priority was entered into by Canterbury Finance Limited (CFL) and a bank with respect to the security interests in Tuam Ventures Limited (in Rec and in Liq) (TVL).  Declaratory relief was sought against the bank and the receivers of TVL.  An issue raised by way of an affirmative defence was whether the assignment of TVL's debt and securities to FTG is valid from a technical legal perspective and therefore wh

In what is likely to be the final chapter in the Ross Asset Management (RAM) liquidation, assuming no appeal is filed, the High Court has considered an application for directions by the liquidators of Ross Asset Management concerning how best to distribute recovered funds.  David Ross operated RAM as a Ponzi scheme for decades until the fraud was uncovered in 2012 and the company went into liquidation.  Mr Ross is currently serving a ten year plus term of imprisonment for his role as architect of the scheme.

In Lafferty v Official Assignee Gordon J considered Mr Lafferty's appeal of two decisions of the Official Assignee to refuse Mr Lafferty's applications under section 62(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 to enter or carry on business while bankrupt.

Gordon J dismissed the appeal on the basis that Mr Lafferty could not show that the Official Assignee had made an error of law, failed to take into account relevant considerations or was manifestly wrong in exercising its discretion under regulation 34 of the Insolvency Regulations 1970.

An application by New Zealand Life Care Limited (Life Care) for an order reversing the decision of the Official Assignee to reject its claim for $4.9m in the bankruptcy of Mr Harman was dismissed by the High Court in New Zealand Life Care Ltd v Official Assignee [2018] NZHC 17.  Life Care said that Mr Harman had guaranteed loans from Life Care to his companies, but accepted that it did not have a written guarantee signed by Mr Harman.  Instead it relied on Mr Harman's admission of the guarantee in affidavits made after his adjudication.

The Hobson Apartments suffer from water tightness issues.  Unusually for a unit development, the top floor apartment on level 12 owned by the appellant Manchester Securities, owned the exterior of its unit including the roof of the building rather than the Body Corporate.  Severe water damage was identified in October 2009.  Following a series of High Court decisions and one Court of Appeal decision, Manchester Securities was required to contribute certain amounts to the Body Corporate for repair costs.