Ginnen Alarms Limited v Getgroup Limited (in liquidation)

[2019] NZHC 2299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-000972

[2019] NZHC 2299

BETWEEN

GINNEN ALARMS LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

GETGROUP LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

Defendant

Hearing:	12 September 2019
Appearances:	R Hucker for the Defendant’s Liquidators
Judgment:	13 September 2019

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SARGISSON

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 September 2019 at 11.30 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

…………………………………

Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Hucker & Associates, Auckland A M Swan, Auckland

GINNEN ALARMS LTD v GETGROUP LTD [2019] NZHC 2299 [13 September 2019]

[1]        This is a without notice application under s 280 of the Companies Act 1993, for an order that:

(a)Steven Khov and Kieran Jones be permitted to be liquidators of named companies that are subsidiaries of Getgroup Limited.

[2]        On 16 August 2019 Steven Khov and Kieran Jones were appointed as liquidators of Getgroup Limited in this proceeding on the application of Ginnen Alarms Limited.

[3]        The liquidators say that their preliminary investigation in the liquidation has disclosed that an agreement for sale and purchase was entered into prior to their appointment which disposes of assets and a business of the company in liquidation, and its subsidiaries. The subsidiaries (all 100% owned by the company in liquidation) are:

(a)Get It Coated Limited;

(b)Get It Made Limited;

(c)Get It Moved Limited; and

(d)Get Security Limited.

[4]        The liquidators depose that the affairs of the company in liquidation and its subsidiaries are closely related, and that they believe that the best interests of the company in liquidation and the subsidiaries would be served by appointing the same liquidators for all of them, and would enable the more efficient completion of their investigations.

[5]        They are both experienced insolvency practitioners and are clearly aware of their professional and ethical obligations. They depose that they do not have conflicts

of interest that would preclude their appointment or ability to discharge their obligations as liquidators.

[6]        In the circumstances set out in the application and supporting affidavit I see no reason not to make the order that the liquidators seek. I make orders as follows:

(a)An order as sought in the application;

(b)An order that the liquidators give notice of the application together with a copy of this judgment and the first liquidators’ report to the creditors of:

(i)the company in liquidation; and

(ii)all or such of the subsidiaries as are placed into liquidation.

Associate Judge Sargisson