Grant v Lotus Gardens Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 29 min read

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA399/2013 [2014] NZCA 127

BETWEEN

DAMIEN GRANT AND STEVEN KHOV

AS LIQUIDATORS OF QUANTUM GROW LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) Appellants

AND

LOTUS GARDENS LIMITED Respondent

Hearing: 20 February 2014

Court:

O’Regan P, Stevens and Asher JJ

Counsel:

B J Norling and J K Boparoy for Appellants
S I Perese for Respondent

Judgment:

4 April 2014 at 2.15 pm

Reissued:

15 April 2014: see minute of 15 April 2014

Effectivedate ofJudgment:

4 April 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A        The appeal is allowed.

B        The order dismissing the liquidation application is quashed.

CThe matter is remitted to the High Court for the High Court to make such orders as to the appointment of a liquidator and any other orders as are considered appropriate.

D        The appellants are entitled to costs for a standard appeal on a band B

basis and usual disbursements.

GRANT & ANOR v LOTUS GARDENS LTD CA399/2013 [2014] NZCA 127 [4 April 2014]

EThe  costs  order  in  favour  of  the  respondent  in  the  High  Court  is quashed, and in its place the appellants will have costs and reasonable disbursements  calculated  on  a  2B  basis.    Any  argument  as  to  the

quantum of costs is to be dealt with in the High Court.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Asher J)

Introduction

[1]      The issues in this appeal are the nature of the debt that arises in favour of a company in liquidation when a transaction is set aside as an insolvent transaction under s 294 of the Companies Act 1993 (the 1993 Act) and if there was an insolvent transaction, the ability of the liquidators to liquidate the respondent company based on a statutory demand.

[2]      The appellants, Damien Grant and Steven Khov, are liquidators of Quantum Grow  Ltd  (in  liquidation)  selling  hydroponic  equipment  and  nutrients.    Lotus Gardens  Ltd  (Lotus Gardens), the  respondent,  is a grower of vegetables.   Alan Canavan who has provided affidavits and evidence is a director of both Quantum Grow Ltd (Quantum Grow) and Lotus Gardens, and the shareholders of the two companies are the same.

[3]      Prior to its liquidation between 3 March 2009 and 20 July 2010 Quantum Grow transferred $113,280.63 to Lotus Gardens.  On 20 March 2012 Quantum Grow was put into liquidation by order of the High Court at Christchurch.  By a letter dated

30 May 2012 the liquidators noted certain transfers made between 23 March 2010 and  July  2010  and  requested  a  statement  of  account  from  Lotus  Gardens summarising the purpose of the payments. There was no response to that request.

[4]      On 24 July 2012 the liquidators issued a formal request under s 261 of the

1993 Act for a statement of account summarising what the payments were for.  Lotus

Gardens did not respond to that notice.

[5]      On 7 September 2012 another notice under s 261 was sent by the liquidators to Lotus Gardens. Again Lotus Gardens did not respond.

[6]…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Grant v Lotus Gardens Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] NZCA 127
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This appeal concerns the procedure for setting aside voidable transactions under the Companies Act 1993 (the Act) and the ability of liquidators to liquidate a company based on a statutory demand. The liquidators of Quantum Grow Ltd (Quantum Grow) sought to liquidate Lotus Gardens Ltd (Lotus Gardens) on the basis of a statutory demand, arguing that Lotus Gardens owed Quantum Grow $25,576.88 in relation to voidable transactions. The liquidators argued that the Associate Judge had erred in refusing to follow McKinnon v Falla Holdings NZ Ltd (in liq), in which it was held that a liquidator could rely on the common law action for money had and received by way of a fraudulent preference. The Court allowed the appeal. The Court found that the liquidators had taken the wrong procedure to recover the amounts paid under the allegedly voidable transactions. The Court considered that Lotus Gardens could not become indebted to the liquidators for the amounts of the alleged voidable transactions unless and until the Court made an order under s 295 of the Act. In the absence of such orders the liquidators were not creditors of Lotus Gardens and did not have standing to seek a liquidation order. The Court also found that Lotus Gardens had not raised a genuine and substantial dispute as to whether there was a voidable transaction. The Court held that the liquidators could rely on a statutory demand procedure. The Court found that Lotus Gardens had no defence under s 296(3) of the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.