Admiralty proceedings against a vessel are necessarily territorial in nature. A debtor’s vessel may sail into a certain jurisdiction and be arrested and sold for the benefit of creditors who both have Admiralty in rem claims against the vessel and actively take the required steps in the Court proceeding concerned.  Creditors not having rights of claim of that nature would miss out or only have a very low priority in respect of the proceeds of sale.

In Strategic Finance Limited (in receivership & in liquidation) and Strategic Nominees Limited (in receivership) v Bridgman and Sanson CA 553/2011 [2013] NZCA 357 the Court of Appeal has, for the moment, settled what constitutes an "account receivable", and this provides certainty regarding the scope of the assets available to meet preferential creditor claims ahead of secured creditors with general security agreements.

Liquidators’ ability to recover funds for unsecured creditors has been strengthened in one context and weakened in another by two recent court judgments.

The Court of Appeal in Farrell v Fences & Kerbs Limited¹ has overturned previous decisions from the High Court, which had considerably widened the availability of the “good faith” defence for creditors. But the finding is interim only, subject to a further hearing on a closely related issue.

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.

In Hutchins v Edwards [2013] NZHC 336, the High Court declined an application for an adjournment by a debtor who sought further time to liquidate property in order to pay a judgment debt.

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.

Making a payment to a creditor (in this case, the IRD) will in and of itself give that creditor priority over competing creditors.  A recent Court of Appeal judgment to that effect, under section 95 of the Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA), carries serious implications for receivers.¹

A lien is the right to hold on to goods, and in some cases sell them, in order to ensure payment.  Often the debt will be connected with services related to the goods.

A lien can be obtained by contract, or in certain specific situations the law creates it automatically.  The difference can be significant.

Under the Personal Property Securities Act (PPSA), the holder of a common law or statutory lien may in some cases have special priority over a company’s secured creditors.

Types of lien

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.

Big receiverships often test legal boundaries, and the Crafar group receivership is no exception.  Gibson & Stiassny v StockCo & Ors1  is the longest decision to date on the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA). 

Although the facts are complex, the practical take-outs are fairly simple: