Falloon v Hansen

[2023] NZHC 1038

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NELSON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHAKATŪ ROHE

CIV-2022-442-047

[2023] NZHC 1038

UNDER

sections 294 and 295 of the Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER

of Medical Devices & Testing Ltd (in receivership and liquidation)

BETWEEN

GEOFFREY JOHN FALLOON as liquidator of Medical Devices & Testing Ltd (in

receivership and liquidation) Applicant

AND

PHILLIP JAMES HANSEN

Respondent

CIV-2022-442-048

UNDER

sections 294 and 295 of the Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER

of Medical Devices & Testing Ltd (in receivership and liquidation)

BETWEEN

GEOFFREY JOHN FALLOON as

liquidator of Medical Devices & Testing Ltd (in receivership and liquidation) Applicant

AND

AMBER ROSE HANSEN

Respondent

CIV-2022-442-049
UNDER	sections 294 and 295 of the Companies Act 1993
IN THE MATTER	of Medical Devices & Testing Ltd (in receivership and liquidation)

FALLOON v HANSEN [2023] NZHC 1038 [3 May 2023]

BETWEEN

GEOFFREY JOHN FALLOON as

liquidator of Medical Devices & Testing Ltd (in receivership and liquidation) Applicant

AND

TANIA ALICE USHAW

Respondent

Hearing:	28 April 2023
Appearances:	S Galbreath for the Applicant in all three proceedings No appearance by or for any of the three respondents
Judgment:	3 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE JOHNSTON

[1]    These are all originating applications by the liquidator of Medical Devices & Testing Ltd (in receivership and liquidation) to set aside voidable transactions and corresponding claims in respect of the amounts involved in each case.

[2]    In the 047 and 049 proceedings, neither of the respondents — Phillip Hansen and Tania Ushaw, respectively — responded to notices to set aside the transactions. The transactions were, therefore, set aside upon the expiry of the notices. In the case of the 048 proceeding, Amber Hansen did file an objection to the applicant’s notice but has not taken any step in response to the originating application.

[3]    In those circumstances I am treating all three matters as being in the nature of judgments by default for liquidated amounts (over which an Associate Judge has jurisdiction by reason of the fact that they are applications pursuant to the Companies Act 1993).1

[4]    There having been no defence entered to any one of the three originating applications:

1      Senior Courts Act 2016, s 20.

(a)in the case of the 047 proceeding, I enter judgment in favour of the applicant against Phillip Hansen in the sum of $20,929.92 plus interest;

(b)in the case of the 048 proceeding, I make an order setting aside the transaction involving Amber Hansen and enter judgment in favour of the applicant against her in the sum of $13,223.90 plus interest; and

(c)in the case of the 049 proceeding, I enter judgment in favour of the applicant against Tania Ushaw in the sum of $11,851.57 plus interest.

[5]    In each proceeding, the applicant will have his costs on a 2B basis together with such disbursements as may be allowed by the Registrar.

Associate Judge Johnston