Legal Research
Cases
Burt v Grant

Burt v Grant

Case [2025] NZHC 2486 29 August 2025

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-438

[2025] NZHC 2486

UNDER Section 284 of the Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER OF

an application to reverse and/or modify decision by the liquidators

BETWEEN

DAVID JOSEPH BURT, DAVID PETERS, KARL MCGHIE, MATTHEW ALEXANDER, KELLY VAKALAHI AND HAYDEN RUSSELL WRIGHT in their

capacity as the Liquidation Committee of STANLEY CONSTRUCTION LIMITED, STANLEY CONSTRUCTION (AUCKLAND) LIMITED, STANLEY ECOBUILD LIMITED, STANLEY GROUP LIMITED AND STANLEY MODULAR

LIMITED (all in liquidation)

Applicants

AND

DAMIEN GRANT and ADAM BOTTERILL

Respondents

Hearing: 25 August 2025

Appearances:

F B Collins / E J Gardiner for the Applicants K Cocks / A Teng for the Respondents

Date of Judgment:

29 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BRITTAIN

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 August 2025 at 12 midday.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Solicitors/Counsel:
Ford Sumner, Wellington Waterstone, Auckland

…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

BURT v GRANT [2025] NZHC 2486 [29 August 2025]

Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................. 1

Background................................................................................................................ 10

Application for directions for service and an adjournment....................................... 29

Legal principles — s 284........................................................................................... 36

The statutory trust...................................................................................................... 41

The liquidators’ position............................................................................................ 45

The companies’ recovered retentions......................................................................... 49

The liquidators’ argument...................................................................................... 49

Analysis.................................................................................................................. 52

The settlement payments............................................................................................ 66

The liquidators’ argument...................................................................................... 66

Analysis.................................................................................................................. 68

Next steps................................................................................................................... 82

Orders......................................................................................................................... 87

Introduction

[1] Stanley Construction Ltd (in liquidation) (SCL) and Stanley Construction (Auckland) Ltd (in liquidation) (SCAL) traded as construction companies (the companies). The companies engaged subcontractors and retained payments due to the subcontractors pursuant to the subcontracts (the subcontractors’ retentions).

[2] The applicants are the liquidation committee for the companies (the committee), and in this proceeding, they represent the interests of the subcontractors. The respondents are the liquidators of the companies.

[3] At the material time, the Construction Contracts Act 2002 (CCA) provided that the companies were required to hold the subcontractors’ retentions on statutory trust for the subcontractors.1 The liquidators and the committee agree that the companies failed to comply with their obligations under the CCA.

[4] The liquidators issued proceedings to recover the shortfall of the subcontractors’ retentions from three directors of the companies (the retentions proceedings).2 The retentions proceedings have been settled in part, and the liquidators have received settlement payments from two of the directors (the settlement payments).

[5] In addition, the liquidators have received payments of retentions due to the companies from principals under head contracts (the companies’ recovered retentions).

[6] There is a dispute about whether the settlement payments and/or the companies’ recovered retentions form part of the general pool of the assets of the companies or are held on trust for the subcontractors.

[7] The beneficial ownership of the settlement payments and the companies’ recovered retentions affects the liquidators’ right to apply the funds towards the liquidators’ remuneration and expenses.

1 Construction Contract Acts 2002, pt 2 sub-pt 2A.
2 Stanley Construction Ltd (in liq) v Stanley HC Hamilton CIV-2021-419-312.

[8] The committee applies for directions to resolve the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Burt v Grant

Details

AGLC: Burt v Grant [2025] NZHC 2486
Case: [2025] NZHC 2486
Decision Date: 29 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over the case of Burt v Grant, concerning the liquidation of Stanley Construction Ltd and Stanley Construction (Auckland) Ltd, and the dispute over the beneficial ownership of settlement payments and recovered retentions. The applicants, the Liquidation Committee, sought directions to determine whether these funds formed part of the general pool of the companies' assets or were held on trust for subcontractors. The liquidators argued that the settlement payments and recovered retentions were general assets available to creditors and should be applied towards their remuneration and expenses. The court examined the statutory trust provisions under the Construction Contracts Act 1993 and found that the subcontractors were the beneficial owners of both the settlement payments and the companies' recovered retentions. The liquidators did not have the right to apply these funds to their remuneration and expenses. The court reversed the liquidators' decisions and directed that the settlement payments and recovered retentions be held on trust for the subcontractors. The case was adjourned for a hearing on the liquidators' entitlement to reimbursement of reasonable remuneration and expenses incurred in respect of the retentions proceedings.

Orders