Fulltext Search

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.

一、“集中管辖”概述

《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》(下称“《民事诉讼法》”)中,对于“集中管辖”并无明确的规定,而在民事诉讼的司法实践中,存在许多被称为“集中管辖”的做法。实务中,“集中管辖”泛指将某类案件,依照《民事诉讼法》及其他法律法规的相关规定,以司法解释或者通知的形式,集中由某类法院或某个法院管辖的情形。

概括来说,“集中管辖”共分为如下三种情形:

(1)某类法院集中管辖某类案件,如依据《中华人民共和国企业破产法》(下称“《企业破产法》”)第二十一条的规定,破产案件中涉债务人的诉讼案件集中由受理破产申请的人民法院管辖,或者依据《全国法院审理债券纠纷案件座谈会纪要》(以下简称“《债券会议纪要》”)第十条的规定,以发行人或者增信机构为被告提起的要求依约偿付债券本息或者履行增信义务的合同纠纷案件,由发行人住所地人民法院管辖;

(2)某个法院集中管辖某一类型化案件,如各地金融法院集中管辖当地金融案件、各地知识产权法院集中管辖当地知识产权案件;

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.

AML changes for court-appointed liquidators

Important changes for court-appointed liquidators to the regulations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (Act) will come into force on 9 July 2021.  These changes provide that, for a court-appointed liquidator:

The High Court has released its judgment in Re Halifax NZ Limited (In liq) [2021] NZHC 113, involving a unique contemporaneous sitting of the High Court of New Zealand and Federal Court of Australia.

This update deals with the significant appeal judgment released yesterday by the Court of Appeal in the proceedings brought by the liquidators of Mainzeal Property and Construction Ltd (in Liq) (Mainzeal) against its directors. Our previous legal updates on the High Court decisions can be found here and here.

The real lesson from Debut Homes – don't stiff the tax (wo)man

The Supreme Court has overturned the 2019 Court of Appeal decision Cooper v Debut Homes Limited (in liquidation) [2019] NZCA 39 and restored the orders made by the earlier High Court decision, reminding directors that the broad duties under the Companies Act require consideration of the interests of all creditors, and not just a select group. This is the first time New Zealand’s highest court has considered sections 131, 135 and 136 of the Companies Act, making this a significant decision.

Five years after it refused to pay rent and took the landlord to the High Court, and two years after it was placed into liquidation on account of unpaid rent, the final branch of litigation brought by the directors of Oceanic Palms Limited (in liq) has been cut down by the Supreme Court.

The UK Supreme Court in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liq) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical Ltd) [2020] UKSC 25 has decided that the adjudication regime for building disputes is not incompatible with the insolvency process.