The UK Supreme Court has recently considered the role of commercial common sense in interpreting a contract.  Rainy Sky v Kookmin Bank concerned the interpretation of bonds issued by Kookmin Bank to guarantee the return of advance payments made by six purchasers under separate shipbuilding contracts. The shipbuilder had suffered an insolvency event and the purchasers were claiming refunds of the advance payments made to the shipbuilder under the bonds. The Bank contended that the bonds did not guarantee repayment of the advances on insolvency.

In Intext Coatings Ltd (In Liquidation) v Deo, the High Court was again asked to consider the limits of the equitable remedy of tracing (previously considered here). In particular, the Court was asked to consider the circumstances in which 'backward tracing' (the tracing of trust funds used to repay a debt into the asset over which that debt arose) is available.

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.

Mr Maharaj owned a building company. Ms Nandani, his wife, owns a residential property. Mr Maharaj needed funding, which he could not obtain. However, the necessary funds were loaned to Ms Nandani and secured over her property. Ms Nandani subsequently contended that:

The recent case of Simpson v Commission of Inland Revenue (HC, 17/5/2011; Dobson J, Wellington, CIV 2010-485-1860) concerned the issue of whether receivers are personally liable to account for goods and services tax (GST) on the sale of six properties effected by them.

In March 2013, four portable gas turbines worth about AU$50m had been leased to Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (Forge) by GE International Inc (GE) as lessor.  In February 2014 and March 2014 Forge was placed in administration and liquidation respectively.

(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. 

In Erwood v Official Assignee [2015] NZCA 478 an application was made to review a decision declining to dispense with security for costs.  The applicant, Mr Erwood, argued that he had demonstrated impecuniosity, and that the Registrar had erred in finding to the contrary.

Mr Erwood held nearly $800,000 on deposit with a bank. His account had been frozen by the bank on the basis that Mr Erwood lacked the capacity to give the bank authority for the account.  The bank had formed this view on information provided to them by Mr Erwood.

In Taylor & Ors v Bank of New Zealand (HC, 14/12/2010, Panckhurst J, Christchurch, CIV 2008-409-964), the High Court held that a bank's appointment of a receiver without any prior written notice to the debtor was in accordance with the terms of the security agreement and was therefore valid.

In Purewal v Countrywide Residential Lettings Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1122, the receivers of a property did not make an insurance claim in relation to damage to the property.  The mortgagor of the property (a bankrupt) repaired the property himself.  He brought an action against the receivers for breach of duty by failing to make an insurance claim, claiming damages for the cost of the repairs.