IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2021-404-002227
[2023] NZHC 765
UNDER Companies Act 1993, ss 284(1)(g) and 250 IN THE MATTER OF
An application to terminate the liquidation of HSK TRADING LIMITED (IN
LIQUIDATION)
BETWEEN
HARGUN SINGH
Applicant
AND
HSK TRADING LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
First Respondent
CHRISTOPHER CAREY MCCULLAGH and STEPHEN MARK LAWRENCE
Second Respondents
CARTERS BUILDING SUPPLIES LIMITED T/A CARTERS
Third Respondent
Hearing: On the papers Counsel:
P J Morris for Third Respondent
Judgment:
5 April 2023
JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J
[Costs]
This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 5 April 2023 at 3.00 pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar
Date ………………………….
SINGH v HSK TRADING LTD (IN LIQ) [2023] NZHC 765 [5 April 2023]
[1] In my judgment of 30 November 2022, I dismissed Mr Singh’s applications under s 284 and 285 of the Companies Act 1993, seeking a declaration that the liquidators of HSK Trading Ltd (in liquidation) were improperly appointed and an order terminating the liquidation.1
[2]This judgment contains my decision on costs.
[3] The Court has received a brief submission from the third respondent on the issue of costs. No documents have been received from the other parties, and in particular from Mr Singh.
[4] It is clear that the third respondent was the successful party in the litigation. Costs follow the event and the third respondent is entitled to costs in accordance with the principles set out at r 14 of the High Court Rules 2016.
[5] I order that Mr Singh is to pay costs to the third respondent on a 2B basis in the total sum of $5,616.50, together with disbursements of $95.65.
Andrew J
- AGLC
- Singh v HSK Trading Limited (in liquidation) [2023] NZHC 765
- Case
- [2023] NZHC 765
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues in the case revolved around the proper appointment of the liquidators and whether the liquidation of HSK Trading Limited should be terminated. The Court had to determine whether there was any evidence to support Mr Singh's claims that the liquidators were improperly appointed and if the liquidation should be terminated based on the provided information. The Court was also required to consider the principles governing costs in the High Court Rules 2016.
Justice Andrew found that there was no evidence to support Mr Singh’s claims regarding the improper appointment of the liquidators. The Court dismissed Mr Singh’s applications under sections 284 and 285 of the Companies Act 1993, concluding that the liquidators were properly appointed and the liquidation should continue. The Court then turned to the issue of costs, determining that Carters Building Supplies Limited was the successful party in the litigation. According to the principles set out in rule 14 of the High Court Rules 2016, costs follow the event, and the successful party is entitled to costs. The Court ordered Mr Singh to pay costs to Carters Building Supplies Limited on a 2B basis, amounting to $5,616.50, plus disbursements of $95.65.
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.