Kang v Jan - [2025] NZHC 1375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-2525

[2025] NZHC 1375

BETWEEN
JUDY KANG (NGOC GIAU KANG)

Applicant

AND

MOHAMMED TAZLEEN NASIB JAN

Respondent

Hearing: 20 May 2025

Appearances:

G Jindal for Applicant A Ho for Respondent

Judgment:

29 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 May 2025 at 2.30pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

KANG v JAN [2025] NZHC 1375 [29 May 2025]

[1] Ms Kang, by resolution dated 27 September 2024, placed three companies of which she was sole director and shareholder into liquidation, appointing Mr Jan as liquidator.

[2] Ms Kang’s application to remove Mr Jan as liquidator was commenced by a document referred to as an application. Associate Judge Gardiner on 24 October 2024 directed that the application be treated as an originating application. Neither party required deponents to be cross-examined. Significantly, Ms Kang did not file an affidavit in reply to Mr Jan’s only affidavit in opposition. I suspect the reason there was no reply from Ms Kang is that the focus of her application is not so much on the actions of Mr Jan (save in respect of his conduct concerning a creditors’ meeting), but rather his association with a Mr Imran Kamal, or at least Mr Kamal’s company, called Liquidation Management Limited (LML).

[3] Neither party sought an order for discovery under r 19.11 of the High Court Rules 2016.

The companies in liquidation

[4] EZ Foods Limited (in liq) (EZ Foods) and B&R Group (2020) Limited (in liq) (B&R) have substantial liabilities to the Inland Revenue Department (IRD). On 29 August 2024, the IRD issued a statutory demand against EZ Foods for approximately $938,000. In addition, EZ Foods owes approximately $635,000 to other creditors. B&R has preferential debt to the IRD of approximately $600,000. It was not trading when liquidated. J&K Luxury Beauty Limited (in liq) (J&K) had ceased trading at the time of liquidation and apparently has no assets.

[5] Ms Kang, in her evidence, accepts her companies had no way of meeting their liability to the IRD, at least not by a payment plan acceptable to IRD. That reality made liquidation inevitable for EZ Foods and B&R.

[6] One of the main planks of Ms Kang’s application is that, prior to liquidation, she says she took advice from Mr Kamal as to the financial position of the companies and the desirability of liquidation. Ms Kang is highly critical of that advice.

[7] Ms Kang’s focus on the conduct of Mr Kamal is confirmed by the following passages from the application seeking Mr Jan’s removal:

2.The grounds on which each order will be sought are as follows:

…

(b)Give[n] the historic issues with the fitness, conduct and character of Mr Kamal, the balance of convenience lies in continuing the status quo.1
(c)The creditors of 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 Kang v Jan

Details

AGLC: Kang v Jan [2025] NZHC 1375
Case: [2025] NZHC 1375
Decision Date: 29 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Judy Kang, the sole director and shareholder of three companies, applied to the High Court for the removal of Mohammed Tazleen Nasib Jan, the liquidator of the companies, on the basis that he was not independent and impartial. Kang's primary contention was that Jan was acting as a front for Imran Kamal, a disqualified insolvency practitioner, and therefore not fit to act as a liquidator. Kang alleged that Kamal had provided her with pre-liquidation advice and that she believed he would be the liquidator. The court found that Kang's application was primarily based on 'guilt by association' with Kamal, which was insufficient to warrant Jan's removal. The court also noted that Jan's connection with Kamal did not automatically render him unfit to act as a liquidator. The court found no evidence of Jan's lack of independence or impartiality, and the application was dismissed. The court ordered Kang to pay Jan's costs on a standard basis, plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Orders