Loo v Quinlan

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA348/2021
[2021] NZCA 613

BETWEEN

CHOO BOON LOO
Appellant

AND

PHILIP ALEXANDER QUINLAN AND MORGAN JOHN KELLY (IN THEIR CAPACITY AS LIQUIDATORS)
First Respondents

HALIFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Second Respondent

PHILIP ALEXANDER QUINLAN AND MORGAN JOHN KELLY (IN THEIR CAPACITY AS TRUSTEES)
Third Respondents

ELYSIUM BUSINESS SYSTEMS PTY LIMITED
Fourth Respondent

JASON PAUL HINGSTON
Fifth Respondent

ATLAS ASSET MANAGEMENT PTY LIMITED (AS TRUSTEE FOR THE ATLAS ASSET MANAGEMENT TRUST)
Sixth Respondent

FIONA MCMULLIN
Seventh Respondent

ANDREW PHILLIP WHITEHEAD AND MARLENE WHITEHEAD (AS TRUSTEES FOR THE BEELINE TRUST)
Eighth Respondents

ANDREW PHILLIP WHITEHEAD
Ninth Respondent

JEFFREY JOHN WORBOYS
Tenth Respondent

HONG KONG CAPITAL HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED
Eleventh Respondent

Court:	Kós P, Cooper and Goddard JJ
Counsel:	I Jackman SC, E A J Hyde and R J Pietriche for Appellant A Leopold SC, E Holmes and M Kersey for First to Third Respondents S Couper QC and J V Gooley for Fourth Respondent Appearances excused for Fifth to Eleventh Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	19 November 2021 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT AS TO COSTS

The appellant must pay costs to the first to third, and the fourth, respondents for a complex appeal on a band B basis, with allowance for a second counsel, and usual disbursements.

___________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Kós P)

This appeal was dismissed on 26 October 2021, with costs reserved.[1] Submissions have been received. The costs order of the Court is that the first to third, and the fourth, respondents shall each be paid costs for a complex appeal on a band B basis, with allowance for a second counsel, together with usual disbursements. We do not consider this a case in which an award of indemnity costs can be justified.
[1]Loo v Quinlan [2021] NZCA 561.

Solicitors:
Maddocks Lawyers, Sydney for Appellant
Russell McVeagh, Auckland for First to Third Respondents
Turks Legal, Sydney for Fourth Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Choo Boon Loo, the appellant, brought an appeal against various respondents including Philip Alexander Quinlan and Morgan John Kelly, who appeared as liquidators, and Halifax New Zealand Limited, which was in liquidation. The nature of the dispute involves financial transactions and the interpretation of legal agreements related to a company's liquidation and the rights of various creditors and stakeholders. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand.

The legal issues in the case centred on the interpretation and application of New Zealand insolvency law, specifically focusing on the rights of creditors and the validity of certain financial transactions during the liquidation process. The appellant argued that certain transactions were invalid and that he was entitled to specific financial outcomes as a creditor. The respondents contended that the transactions were legitimate and that the appellant's claims were without merit.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of Kós P, Cooper, and Goddard JJ, dismissed the appeal. The court found that the appellant's arguments were not substantiated by the evidence or the law. The court's reasoning focused on the procedural fairness of the liquidation process and the binding nature of the transactions in question. The court concluded that the liquidators and other respondents had acted within their legal rights and that the appellant's claims were not supported by the law. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the first to third and fourth respondents on a band B basis, with allowance for a second counsel and usual disbursements.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established