PricewaterhouseCoopers v Robert Bruce Walker and John Marshall Scutter as liquidators of Property Ventures Limited (in liquidation) and Robert Bruce Walker as liquidator of Five Mile Holdings Limited (in receivershi..

[2016] NZSC 165

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 89/2016
[2016] NZSC 165

BETWEEN

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
Applicant

AND

ROBERT BRUCE WALKER AND JOHN MARSHALL SCUTTER AS LIQUIDATORS OF PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ROBERT BRUCE WALKER AS LIQUIDATOR OF FIVE MILE HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION), MONTECRISTO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION), CASTLE STREET VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION), LIVINGSPACE PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION)
First Respondent

Cont'd next page

Court:	Glazebrook, OʼRegan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	B D Gray QC for Applicant J B M Smith QC, T G H Smith and R S May for Respondents
Judgment:	13 December 2016

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (PricewaterhouseCoopers v Walker [2016] NZCA 338).

BThe approved question is:

Did the Court of Appeal err in upholding the High Court’s refusal to stay the proceeding?

____________________________________________________________________

PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Second Respondent

FIVE MILE HOLDINGS LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION)
Third Respondent

CASHEL VENTURES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Fourth Respondent

TAY VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION)
Fifth Respondent

LIVINGSPACE PROPERTIES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION)
Sixth Respondent

BEECHNEST VENTURES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Seventh Respondent

TUAM VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION)
Eighth Respondent

CASTLE STREET VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION)
Ninth Respondent

LICHFIELD VENTURES LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION)
Tenth Respondent

92 LICHFIELD LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND LIQUIDATION)
Eleventh Respondent

ST ASAPH VENTURES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Twelfth Respondent

MONTECRISTO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Thirteenth Respondent

REASONS

1. The approved question is designed to allow the parties to pursue all of the arguments foreshadowed in the application for leave and the parties’ submissions.

2. We ask the parties to address the propriety of the position of the liquidator, given the unsecured creditors are unlikely to be recipients of any proceeds of the proceedings, should they be successful.

Solicitors:
Fee Langstone, Auckland for Applicant
Luke Cunningham Clere, Wellington for Respondents