Peter Walsh & Associates Limited v Guyan Farming Limited (in liq)

[2021] NZHC 3281

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE

CIV-2020-418-10

[2021] NZHC 3281

BETWEEN

PETER WALSH & ASSOCIATES LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

GUYAN FARMING LIMITED (IN LIQ)

Defendant

Hearing:	(Determined on the papers)
Counsel:	T C G Nation for Plaintiff
Judgment:	2 December 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

PETER WALSH & ASSOCIATES LIMITED v GUYAN FARMING LIMITED (IN LIQ) [2021] NZHC 3281

[2 December 2021]

[1]    Guyan Farming Limited (in liquidation) (Guyan) was placed in liquidation by order of this Court on 7 December 2020. Geoff Brown and Lynda Smart were appointed liquidators. The liquidation has now been completed and the liquidators seek approval of their fees.

[2]    The liquidators have filed a comprehensive memorandum setting out the work undertaken, the recoveries made, the distributions to creditors, and a breakdown of their fees. They have also provided copies of their reports.

[3]    Guyan was incorporated on 15 May 2019 and operated as a share milker on   a dairy farm. It ceased trading a little over a year after incorporation.

[4]    The liquidators on appointment were faced with the need to undertake interviews with the directors and obtain company records. They ascertained there were overdrawn directors’ and shareholders’ current accounts, but attempts to recover those overdrawn accounts came to naught when the directors and shareholders were adjudicated bankrupt.

[5]    The liquidators’ investigations disclosed assets owned by Guyan that had not been revealed to them by the directors, resulting in the liquidators recovering a tractor and an item of plant which were sold at auction to produce funds in the liquidation.

[6]    The liquidators from their recoveries paid $3,934.51 on account of the petitioning creditor’s court costs and made a distribution of $16,463.17 to the secured creditor representing 27 cents in the dollar of the amount owed to the secured creditor. The liquidators’ fees total $11,985.50 plus disbursements.

[7]    I am satisfied that the liquidators have run a “tight ship” in terms of the liquidation  and  but  for  their  efforts  there  would  have  been  no  recovery  for  the petitioning creditor’s costs or the secured creditor. I am also satisfied that the liquidators’ disbursements are reasonable.

[8]Accordingly, the liquidators’ fees and disbursements are approved.

[9]    The liquidators’ statutory reporting has been comprehensive and the liquidators have provided detailed breakdowns of their remuneration in their reporting.

[10]   As noted by the liquidators in their memorandum Re Roslea Path Ltd (in liq) provides that where the liquidators’ remuneration is described in their report sent to creditors and where there is no objection by the time application of approval of fees is made, the Court can properly approve the remuneration charge without the need for detailed information.1 The rates of remuneration to be charged by the liquidators were approved at the time of liquidation.

[11]   Accordingly, as I have said, I consider it appropriate that the liquidators’ remuneration be approved.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:

Timpany Walton Lawyers, Timaru

Copy to:
Rodgers Reidy (NZ) Limited, Christchurch

1      Re Roslea Path Ltd (in liq) [2013] 1 NZLR 207 (HC) at [145]-[153] and [187].