IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE
CIV-2020-419-000209
[2021] NZHC 398
UNDER The Companies Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF
PAUANUI MOUNTAIN ESTATE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
BETWEEN
GREGORY ABE NEEDHAM
Plaintiff
AND
KELERA LUVU NAYACAKALOU
Defendant
Hearing: 11 February 2021 Appearances:
S McAnally for Plaintiff D Hayes for Defendant
Judgment:
5 March 2021
JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE P J ANDREW
NEEDHAM v NAYACAKALOU [2021] NZHC 398 [5 March 2021]
Introduction
[1] The plaintiff was the former sole director of Pauanui Mountain Estate Ltd (in liquidation) (PMEL). He makes application for leave to apply for the following relief under s 284 of the Companies Act 1993 (Companies Act):
(a)A declaration that the defendant, Kelera Nayacakalou, was not validly appointed as liquidator of PMEL, or if she was, the office of liquidator became vacant in May 2018 when the defendant ceased acting as liquidator due to incapacity;
(b)A declaration that the actions the defendant has purported to take as liquidator are of no effect;
(c)An order that the decision of the defendant, purportedly as liquidator of PMEL, to retain $100,000 for her own remuneration and expenses, be reversed;
(d)An order that Mr Simon Dalton and Mr Matthew Kemp, insolvency practitioners of Auckland, be appointed to act jointly and severally as liquidators of PMEL;
(e)In the event that the Court declines to make the orders at [a] – [c] above, an order fixing the remuneration of the defendant, as liquidator, to a reasonable amount.
Factual background
[2] PMEL was incorporated on 18 July 1990. Mr Needham has been the sole director since 2006. At the time of liquidation in 2014, the shares of PMEL were owned by Mr Needham’s wife (as to 50 per cent) and the trustees of the Pecunia In Posterum Institutum Trust (being at that time, Mr and Mrs Needham, and Mr Anthony Banbrook, who has since died) (PIT Trust).
[3] PMEL owned a large piece of land at Pauanui. In 2012, that land was transferred to a new company, Pauanui Dream Estate Ltd (PDEL). That transfer was a consequence of an arrangement entered into by PMEL with a company called Samy Trustee Ltd.
[4] PDEL is owned as to 60 per cent by Samy Trustee Ltd. Its sole director is Mr John Samy. That position was only established after litigation in this Court. Immediately after incorporation of PDEL, Mr Needham registered a transfer of 550 shares to himself so as to become the majority shareholder. He then caused himself to be appointed as the director and later (in May 2015) to have a relative, Mr Richard Needham, likewise appointed.1
[5] Both the transfer and the appointments were challenged in proceedings in this Court in 2016. In Samy Trustee Ltd v Pauanui Dream Estate Ltd,2 Fogarty J held that the merits were overwhelmingly “in favour of the plaintiff, Samy Trustee Ltd” and that the defendant’s argument “was hopeless”. Fogarty J ordered Samy Trustee Ltd had legal title to the…
Continue reading Needham v Nayacakalou
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Needham v Nayacakalou [2021] NZHC 398
- Case
- [2021] NZHC 398
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court found that while there was an arguable case that Nayacakalou's appointment as liquidator was invalid due to an improper delegation of her responsibilities to Nicholas Hayes, there was insufficient evidence to establish a "sham" in the legal sense. Additionally, it was arguable that Nayacakalou's office became vacant due to her incapacity starting in May 2018. However, the Court concluded that the plaintiff had not shown a reasonable likelihood that the Court would disturb the acts or decisions in question. The Court held that despite potential issues with the liquidation process, there were insufficient funds in the liquidation to justify appointing new liquidators to investigate Nayacakalou’s conduct and revisit the settlement.
The Court dismissed Needham's applications for leave under section 284 of the Companies Act 1993 and awarded costs to Nayacakalou on a 2B basis.
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.