Bidvest New Zealand Limited v Country Chicken & Pizza Express NZ Limited t/a Country Chicken Pacific

[2012] NZHC 1227

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-2050 [2012] NZHC 1227

IN THE MATTER OF     The Companies Act 1993

BETWEEN  BIDVEST NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDCOUNTRY CHICKEN & PIZZA EXPRESS NZ LIMITED T/A COUNTRY CHICKEN PACIFIC

Defendant

Hearing:         31 May 2012

Appearances: Mr Pamatatau for Plaintiff

No appearance for Defendant

Judgment:      31 May 2012

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE DOOGUE

Solicitors:

Kevin McDonald & Associates, Takapuna

(Counsel: Mr B Pamatatau –  [email protected])

Mr A Sheikh – by email: [email protected]

BIDVEST NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V COUNTRY CHICKEN & PIZZA EXPRESS NZ LIMITED T/A COUNTRY CHICKEN PACIFIC HC AK CIV-2012-404-2050 [31 May 2012]

[1]      A letter was sent to the Court by Mr Azad Sheikh who described himself as a managing director of “Country Chicken  Pacific”.   There was included with the documents a document headed “Statement of Defence”.  Essentially Mr Azad Sheikh admitted that the debt was owing but sought time to pay it and undertook that the company of which he is a director, he says, would have completed payment of the debt by March 2013.  Mr Azad Sheikh did not appear when the matter was called although he apparently recognised that the company can only be represented by legal counsel, that being implicit in the letter that he sent to the Court.

[2]      Mr Pamatatau for the plaintiff seeks to proceed today.   He points out that there is not in fact any defence before the Court. The documents that have been filed for the company admit the debt and seek time.  That is an accurate summary of the effect of the documents.

[3]      I agree with Mr Pamatatau that there is no reason why the plaintiff should not be able to proceed today. The plaintiff is not obliged to accept staged payments. The defendant company is presumptively insolvent and that status is confirmed by the documents which the director has sent to the Court.  The time sought for repayment of the debt is not realistic.   The Court will frequently allow a month or so for a defendant company to realise assets or in some other way come up with the money required to meet the plaintiff’s debt but what is proposed here is well outside that range and my view is excessive.   The defendant will be placed into liquidation. Grant Bruce Reynolds is appointed liquidator.  I approve the liquidation rates set out in paragraph four of the consent to act which he signed on 23 May 2012.  Approval of remuneration rates is subject to the conditions set out in paragraph six of his consent to act.  The order placing the company into liquidation is made at 10.55 a.m. the  plaintiff  will  have  costs  on  a  2B  basis  and  disbursements  as  fixed  by  the

Registrar.

J.P. Doogue

Associate Judge