42Go Limited v 230 Bower Ave Limited (in liquidation)

[2025] NZHC 3239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2025-409-111

[2025] NZHC 3239

UNDER

the Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER

of the liquidation of 230 Bower Ave Limited (in liquidation)

BETWEEN

42GO LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

230 BOWER AVE LIMITED (in liquidation) Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	29 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 October 2025 at 3.15 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

42GO LIMITED v 230 BOWER AVE LIMITED [2025] NZHC 3239 [29 October 2025]

[1]    This is an application by the liquidators of  230  Bower  Ave  Ltd, Christopher McCullagh and Stephen Lawrence, for approval of their overall remuneration in an amount of $17,013.83. They were appointed liquidators by the High Court on 1 May 2025.

[2]    The liquidators have attached the draft final report to their memorandum, prepared on the basis that their fees have been approved.

[3]    The liquidators have provided a summary of the work undertaken in the liquidation which I have considered. I accept the description of the work undertaken.

[4]    In the course of the liquidation the liquidators sold the company’s only asset, a parcel of land at Bower Avenue, from which they have paid preferential costs awarded in the proceeding. In addition, they have received only two claims from unsecured creditors and have made distributions to them at the rate of 95.44 cents on the dollar.

[5]    The liquidators advise the company has no further recoverable assets and there are no other funds available for distribution to any class of creditor, and that they are of the view nothing would be gained from prolonging the liquidation further.

[6]    The Court’s power to approve liquidators’ remuneration is provided in s 284 of the Companies Act 1993. The principles that apply in considering applications for approval are set out in the full High Court decision, Re Roslea Path Ltd (in liq).1 The Court of Appeal in Madsen-Ries v Salus Safety Equipment Ltd (in liq) recently confirmed the approach adopted in Re Roslea Path Ltd.2 The Court approved counsel assisting’s summary of the principles that apply to the determination of retrospective applications as follows:3

(a)Liquidators are fiduciaries and their fundamental obligation is a duty to account. There is a conflict between the interests of the liquidator (fiduciary) in receiving remuneration and the interest of the creditors (those to whom the fiduciary duties are owed) who bear the cost of that remuneration.

(b)Liquidators are officers of the Court and are subject to its general supervisory function. They must attend diligently to their tasks and

1      Re Roslea Path Ltd (in liq) [2013] 1 NZLR 207 (HC) at [102].

2      Madsen-Ries v Salus Safety Equipment Ltd (in liq) [2022] NZCA 101.

3 At [15].

make all proper reports and inquiries. They have the same responsibilities as barristers and solicitors.

(c)Liquidators must justify their claims for remuneration. They bear the onus in this regard and the benefit of any doubt due to inadequate information must be resolved in favour of the creditors.

(d)Fixing liquidators’ remuneration requires judicial judgment. It is more akin to an administrative task. It is implicit that the judicial officer can draw on his/her own experience in performing this role.

(e)In fixing liquidators’ remuneration the Court is making a determination of the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed fees compared to the work undertaken and results achieved. The focus is on the value of services rendered to the creditors of the company.

(f)The Court will consider whether there has been unnecessary work or over servicing as this would not represent time reasonably expended at a reasonable rate.

(g)A broad brush approach is acceptable provided that there is an exercise of judicial judgment as opposed to an arbitrary choice of amount.

(h)The process of fixing remuneration needs to be proportionate. It should not be unduly prescriptive; nor should it unnecessarily add costs to creditors.

[7]    I am satisfied the liquidators have taken all reasonable steps for recovery in the liquidation and that it can be concluded.

[8]    The liquidators have included a breakdown of time records and remuneration claimed, confirming the hourly rates applied were rates approved by the Court.

[9]    It appears that work has been undertaken by staff at different levels of seniority to ensure costs were maintained at a reasonable level. The average hourly recovery rate for all work undertaken is $335 excluding GST, which in the Court’s experience is in line with what is being charged in the market and has been approved in similar cases.

[10]   I note also that the liquidators’ fees and disbursements of $4,221.67 will remain unbilled once the approval sought has been given.

[11]   I am satisfied, having regard to the information provided, that the liquidators’ remuneration reflects the value of services rendered to the creditors of the company.

Result

[12]I grant the application for approval of the liquidators’ fees in the amount of

$17,013.83 (excluding GST).

O G Paulsen Associate Judge

Copy to:
PFK Corporate Recovery & Insolvency (Auckland) Ltd