Green Meadow Holdings ApS v Sargison

Link copied
Case Copied 45 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-3098 [2018] NZHC 2216

UNDER the Building Societies Act 1965

IN THE MATTER

of Kiwi Deposit Building Society (in
Dissolution)

BETWEEN

GREEN MEADOW HOLDINGS APS First Plaintiff

LILAC POND HOLIDNGS APS Second Plaintiff

AND

PAUL GRAHAM SARGISON AND SIMON DALTON

Defendants

Hearing: 22 June 2018

Appearances:

D McGill and D Bennington for the Plaintiffs
S McAnally for the Defendants

Judgment:

5 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 October 2018 at 3:30pm

pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 1985.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors:

Duncan Cotterill (D McGill/D Bennington), Auckland, for the Plaintiffs Keegan Alexander (S O McAnally) Auckland, for the Defendants Counsel:

Noel Ingram QC, Auckland, for the Plaintiffs

GREEN MEADOW HOLDINGS APS v SARGISON AND DALTON [2018] NZHC 2216 [5 October 2018]

Table of Contents

Security for costs application  [4] Building Societies – legislation  [5] This building society  [10] The dissolution  [14] The trustees’ application for directions  [18] The start of this proceeding  [20] The plaintiffs’ pleadings  [21] Strike out application – principles  [25] Priority of creditors  [26] The absence of a liquidation  [34] The defendants as trustees  [38] The first cause of action  [41] The second cause of action  [43] The proposed fourth cause of action  [45] The proposed fifth cause of action  [48] The proposed third cause of action  [50] Outcome   [62]

[1]      Traditionally people joined building societies to finance the purchase of a home. That was shown in s 9 of the Building Societies Act 1965:

The purpose for which a building society may be established under this Act is

that of raising, by the subscriptions of members, a fund for making advances to members out of the funds of the society on security by way of mortgage of land, or on the security of the shares of members, or on other or no security, in accordance with this Act.

But that changed in the 1980s.   Building societies may now do much more.   As financial institutions they have much wider functions.  Section 9 has been repealed and replaced with this:

9A      Functions of building societies

(1)       Subject to any restrictions or prohibitions contained in the rules of a society, the functions of every building society registered under this Act shall

be—

(a)to provide services of any kind for its members or other persons, including, without limiting  the  generality  of  the foregoing, to provide services consisting of, or relating to,—

(i)       the lending of money:

(ii)      the provision of credit:

(iii)     the giving of guarantees and indemnities:

(iv)     the sale and purchase of financial obligations, debts, and securities:

(v)      the discounting of credit instruments: (vi)  banking:

(vii)     investment: (viii) insurance: (ix)     trusteeship:

(x)      foreign exchange dealing:

(b)to acquire by purchase, lease, exchange, or in any other way, land or any interest in land:

(c)to  develop,  improve,  manage,  sell,  lease,  exchange,  or otherwise deal in land or…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Green Meadow Holdings ApS v Sargison 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
[2018] NZHC 2216
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Green Meadow Holdings ApS and Lilac Pond Holdings ApS, Danish companies, sued Paul Graham Sargison and Simon Dalton, trustees of the Kiwi Deposit Building Society (in dissolution), over the distribution of the society’s assets. The society, which held investments in properties in England and Sweden, failed and was put into dissolution in 2013. The plaintiffs held preference shares with “tracking” rights to their investments. The plaintiffs sued on two grounds: the trustees had breached their duties by distributing the funds to unsecured creditors instead of to the plaintiffs as required under the instrument of dissolution, and they had breached their duty of impartiality by preferring the unsecured creditors over the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought to plead a claim for mismanagement. The trustees applied to strike out the statement of claim. The court held that creditors had priority over the plaintiffs, and the first two causes of action were misconceived. The court also held that the fourth and fifth causes of action were impermissible. The proposed third cause of action for mismanagement was held to be procedurally defective, as it was speculative and did not give adequate particulars. The plaintiffs were given leave to amend their pleading, but with a direction that they show how there would be a surplus after creditors’ claims were met, and to give particulars of loss. The plaintiffs were also directed to pay the defendants’ costs of the strike out application. The application was adjourned to allow the plaintiffs to amend their pleading.

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.