A recent judgment in the Wellington High Court makes receivers, liquidators – and, potentially, the directors of companies in receivership and liquidation – personally liable for GST on the sale of mortgaged properties even where the mortgagee is not GST registered.1
The decision is being appealed and may be overturned as – in our view – it rests upon an unusual interpretation of the law.
The government placed the Hubbards, their companies (Aorangi Securities and Hubbard Management Funds), and seven charitable trusts in statutory management in June 2010.
Simpson and Downes v CIR involved an application by receivers for directions under section 34 of the Receiverships Act 1993 in relation to whether the receivers of a mortgagee were personally liable to account for GST on the supply of six properties sold by the receivers at mortgagee sale.
In Jordan and Vance v First City (in liquidation ) & Gore Street (in liquidation), the liquidators of Gore Street applied for a pooling order that the liquidation of the two defendants, First City and Gore Street, proceed as if they were one company.
(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.
The recent case of Re Armitage, ex parte Established Investments Limited (in liquidation) considered an objection by the Official Assignee to Mr Armitage's automatic discharge from bankruptcy.
Levin v Rastkar involved an appeal against a High Court decision dismissing an application by the liquidators of Western Clothing Limited to set aside several transactions by Western alleged to be voidable under section 292 of the Companies Act 1993 (in its previous form).
In our legal update on insolvency law issued in July 2010 we commented on the High Court decision of McKay v Toll Logistics (NZ) Limited.
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.
'Restructuring by numbers' has never been good enough. That is more true now than ever.