In good news for liquidators, the Federal Court’s decision in Marsden (liquidator) v CVS Lane PV Pty Limited Re: Pentridge Village (in which Dentons acted for the liquidator) confirms that time will be extended for liquidators who are unable to bring voidable transaction proceedings within the relevant timeframe due to a lack of funding.

The case also has wider implications. It could be relied upon by liquidators to justify subsequent claims which could otherwise have been brought at an earlier stage if funding had been available.

In Palmerston North City Council v Farm Holdings (4) Ltd (In Liquidation), liquidators were appointed to Farm Holdings by a creditor. Two District Councils applied to review the appointment of the liquidators. The appointing creditor sought to become a party to their application. The two District Councils opposed the appointing creditor becoming a party.

The recent decision in The Official Assignee v Grant Thornton (2012) NZHC 2145 addressed the obligation on a company's auditor to produce all relevant documents and information upon request by a liquidator pursuant to section 261 of the Companies Act 1993.  Associate Judge Abbott held that the public interest in investigating the circumstances leading to a company's collapse trumped an auditor's claim to privacy and confidentiality. 

James Developments Limited (JDL) went into liquidation on 6 July 2009.

In November 2012, the liquidator issued proceedings against a trust for repayment of a loan, six years and one month after the loan was made.  The trustees argued the claim was time-barred.  The liquidator argued there had been a fraudulent cover-up of the loan and that the High Court should postpone the limitation period under section 28 of the Limitation Act 1950 (Act).

A liquidator of a landlord company who disclaims a lease under section 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), a section largely similar to section 269 of the Companies Act 1993 (NZ), does so with full effect, leaving the land unencumbered by the interests of tenants.

In Ebert Construction Ltd v Sanson [2016] NZHC 472, the High Court awarded costs to liquidators after a statutory demand issued by the liquidators had been set aside by consent.  The reasons were as follows:

The High Court decision of Official Assignee v Norris [2012] NZHC 961 examined whether the Official Assignee could apply for orders relating to Mr Norris' actions as liquidator of multiple companies, and whether adequate notice of his alleged failure to comply with his duties as a liquidator had been given. 

The liquidators of a group of companies related to property investor, David Henderson, have recently been ordered to pay a substantial sum for security for costs to the former directors and auditors of the group.  In Walker & Ors v Forbes & Ors the plaintiffs sue the former directors and auditors of the group for alleged breaches of duties.  The proceedings have been allocated a trial of 12 weeks commencing in February 2018.  We reported on disputes over the litigation funding arrangement in this proceeding in an earlier 

Mr Kamal was appointed as liquidator of two companies of which the Commissioner of Inland Revenue (CIR) was a creditor.  The CIR applied to the High Court for orders under section 286(5) of the Companies Act 1993 prohibiting Mr Kamal from acting as a company liquidator for a period of up to five years.

In CIR v Kamal [2016] NZHC 1053 the CIR sought the orders on the basis that Mr Kamal was guilty of a continuing breach of his duties as a liquidator that made him unfit to act as a liquidator because:

Burns & Agnew v Commissioner of the Inland Revenue and Strategic Finance Limited (in rec) concerned a dispute between a secured creditor and the IRD (as a preferential creditor) in respect of certain funds received by the liquidators of Takapuna Procurement Limited (TPL).  The liquidators applied to the High Court for directions as to the application of those funds and this required the Court to undertake an analysis of the concept of an "account receivable" for the purposes of determining whether such funds could be applied to satisfy preferential claims under the Seventh