Khan v Japanese Car Center Limited

[2024] NZHC 3928

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2024-485-786

[2024] NZHC 3928

UNDER

Part 18 of the High Court Rules 2016 and ss 91 and 174 of the Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER

of an application for rectification of the share register and a claim by a prejudiced shareholder

BETWEEN

SHAHBAZ KHAN

Plaintiff

AND

JAPANESE CAR CENTER LIMITED

First Defendant

AHMED NAWAZ

Second Defendant

Teleconference:

19 December 2024

Appearances:

J R Pullar and A E Kennerley for Plaintiff

T Mijatov and D Viatos for Second Defendant

Judgment:

19 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1]These proceedings relate to an application by the plaintiff for:

(a)rectification of the share register; and

(b)relief    as    a    prejudiced    shareholder    (together,    the    Substantive Proceeding).

KHAN v JAPANESE CAR CENTER LIMITED [2024] NZHC 3928 [19 December 2024]

[2]        At the same time as filing the Substantive Proceeding, the plaintiff applied for, on a without notice basis:

(a)freezing orders over  the  assets  of  the  first  defendant  (Carme),  (the Freezing Orders); and

(b)interim orders to:

(i)appoint Muhammed Zia as a director of Carme; and

(ii)rectify the share register (together, the Interim Orders).

[3]        The Freezing Orders and Interim  Orders  were  granted  by  this  Court  on 28 November 2024.1

[4]        On 6 December 2024 the second defendant, Mr Nawaz, filed an application to vary the Freezing Orders and Interim Orders.

[5]        The matter was called in the Judge’s Chambers List on Monday 16 December 2024. The parties advised the Court that settlement in principle had been reached but that additional time was needed to record that agreement in writing. The matter was then adjourned until Wednesday 18 December 2024. A further short adjournment was granted until today when a teleconference was convened.

[6]        The parties have now filed a joint memorandum of counsel recording that they have come to an agreement to resolve all matters between them.

[7]        Part of the  agreement  is  that  the  plaintiff  will  discontinue  the  Substantive Proceeding. The plaintiff requires leave of the Court under r 15.20 of the High Court Rules 2016 because interim orders have been granted and there has been no appearance for the first defendant.2 There is no issue as to costs in relation to the Substantive Proceeding, the Interim Orders or the Freezing Orders.

1      Khan v Japanese Car Center Ltd [2024] NZHC 3595.

2      Rule 15.20(1)(a) and sub-r (4).

[8]Accordingly, I make the following orders:

(a)leave  is  granted   for   the   plaintiff   to   discontinue   the Substantive Proceeding and the Substantive Proceeding is discontinued accordingly;

(b)the Interim Orders and Freezing Orders are discharged; and

(c)there is no issue as to costs in relation to the Substantive Proceeding, the Interim Orders or the Freezing Orders.

McQueen J

Solicitors:
Taylor Shaw, Christchurch for Plaintiff