Shephard v Steel Building Products (Central) Limited [2013] NZHC 189 is a recent decision of Associate Judge Abbott which applied the "running account" test introduced into New Zealand's voidable transaction regime in 2007.  The test treats a series of transactions as a single transaction for the purpose of determining whether a creditor has received a preference, so long as the transactions form an integral part of a continuing business relationship.

Warren Metals v Grant [2013] NZHC 263 was a successful appeal against a District Court decision that struck out the appellant's cause of action on the basis that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to review the acts of liquidators.

The recent Court of Appeal case of Kakara Estate Ltd v Savvy Vineyards 3552 Ltd [2013] NZCA 101 provides a useful reminder that an assignment and a novation of an agreement are different. When an agreement is assigned, the assignor remains a party to the agreement. If the agreement is novated, a new agreement is created between the assignee and the continuing party, and the "assignor" is released.

Re Tames involved an application for the Court to approve a debtor's proposal to creditors under section 333 of the Insolvency Act. The applicant was the provisional trustee for the proposal and sought the Court's approval of the proposal's terms. If the proposal was accepted, Ms Tames (the debtor) would only pay $0.05 on the dollar to her unsecured creditors. The application for approval was opposed by ASB, one of Ms Tames' unsecured creditors.

The Wellington litigation team successfully defended a voidable transaction claim under section 296(3) of the Companies Act 1993 by the liquidators of Contract Engineering Limited in the High Court in Farrell v ACME Engineering Limited [2012] NZHC 2874.

ACME Engineering manufactured and delivered a flash silencer to Contract Engineering in May 2010 and issued an invoice for it.  The invoice was paid late and pursuant to a payment plan.  Contract was placed into receivership in late 2010 and then into liquidation in July 2011. 

In a recent High Court decision, a bank (B) applied to appoint liquidators to the TPS Asset Trust and TPS Asset No2 Trust (Trusts). The defendants had guaranteed loans borrowed from B by their company, both personally and in their capacity as trustees of the Trusts.

The defendants had been found guilty of fraud, tax evasion and attempting to pervert the course of justice in August 2012. In July 2012 the defendants had also been adjudicated bankrupt and their company had been placed in liquidation.

In Carey v Korda receivers had been appointed to companies within the Westpoint Group. The directors of the mortgagor companies were dissatisfied with the receivers' conduct of the receivership and sought (amongst other things) to inspect the invoices from the receivers' legal advisers, Corrs. The receivers objected to producing the invoices on the grounds that they were privileged.

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Healy Holmberg Trading Partnership v Grant, clarified the issue of prioritising multiple security interest claims. The Court held the first registered interest takes priority over a latter perfected claim. The Court analysed section 66 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999, which provides that priority is determined by which report was registered first, not by which claim is perfected first. The Court held section 66 was the guiding provision in establishing which party registered their interest first.

In the Court of Appeal decision of Herbert v New Zealand Guardian Trust Company Limited, the Court declined to grant Mrs Herbert's appeal in relation to the High Court's refusal to approve her creditor's proposal (see the summary in our October 2011 update).

In Rabson v Croad [2013] NZSC 3, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Rabson's appeal of a High Court order pursuant to section 301 of the Companies Act 1993 (Act) that he reimburse $58,084.31 to a company in liquidation of which he had been a director.  Mr Rabson sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court to challenge the Court of Appeal's substantive determination on the basis that (among other things) the High Court failed to comply with section 301 of the Act which confers on the Court the power, in the course of a liquidation, to inquire into the conduct of certain persons a