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.
Official Assignee v Mayers and Ors concerns the common practice of forgiveness of debt owed by a family trust and the consequences of such a gifting programme in the event of the bankruptcy of the lender.
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).
In a decision released in September 2011, the High Court ruled that a mortgagee cannot exercise its power of sale under the mortgage if the Family Court has subsequently made an interim occupation order under the Property (Relationships) Act. That ruling had significant consequences for mortgagees, and was appealed to the Court of Appeal.
“...we consider that the section means what it says, and that there is not much point in trying to paraphrase it.” (Supreme Court in Thompson v CIR)
This guide introduces you to New Zealand's business and trading environment, with particular focus on legal and regulatory matters.
In Fenland District Council v Sheppard and others, FDC had spent £72,000 making a derelict property safe, which by the hearing date was worth less than half that amount. FDC registered the property improvements as an interest in the property, (indisputably) in priority to the prior mortgagee.
When the property's owner was adjudicated bankrupt, the bankrupt's trustee disclaimed the property (under a provision similar to section 117 of the NZ Insolvency Act). FDC sought to have the property vested in it, on the condition that the mortgagee's charge be removed.
In our October 2010 insolvency legal update, we reviewed the case of South Canterbury Finance Ltd v Nielsen, where the Court found in favour of second mortgagee, SCF, on the interpretation of a deed of priority. That case was appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal by the first mortgagee, ASB. This update provides a brief review of the Court of Appeal's reasoning.
(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.