Solomon Solutions Limited (in liquidation)

[2025] NZHC 2509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2017-419-73

[2025] NZHC 2509

UNDER

AND

the Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER

of the liquidation of SOLOMON SOLUTIONS LIMITED (in liquidation)

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Plaintiff

AND

SOLOMON SOLUTIONS LIMITED (in

liquidation) Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	Memorandum filed by K Pihama for the liquidators of the Defendant
Judgment:	29 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCK

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 August 2025 at 4.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

RE SOLOMAN SOLUTIONS LTD [2025] NZHC 2509 [29 August 2025]

Introduction

[1]                 The liquidators of Solomon Solutions Limited (in liquidation) (Company) have completed the liquidation and now apply for approval of remuneration of $20,873.00 (excluding GST).

[2]                 The memorandum filed by the liquidators sets out a summary of the liquidators’ fees by staffing category, number of hours worked and cost.

[3]                 In addition, the memorandum attaches the sixteen six monthly reports lodged with the Registrar of Companies and a draft of the liquidators’ final report pursuant to s 257, prepared on the basis that all distributions have been made and the liquidators’ remuneration has been approved.

[4]                 The issue I have to consider is whether the Court is satisfied that the remuneration for which approval is sought reflects the fair value of services rendered by the liquidator to the creditors of the Company.1

[5]                 In Madsen-Ries v Salus Safety Equipment Ltd (in liq) the Court of Appeal held:2

… even where there is no challenge to the liquidator’s remuneration this does not absolve the Court from the obligation to be satisfied that the remuneration approved reflects the value of the services rendered to the creditors of the company.

[6]                 The fees for which approval is sought fall within Tier 2 as categorised in Re Roslea Path Limited (in liq) as they are between $7,500 and $25,000.3

[7]                 I briefly set out the background below before approving the remuneration as sought.

1      Re Roslea Path Limited (in liq) [2013] 1 NZLR 207 (HC) as approved in Madsen-Ries v Salus Safety Equipment Ltd (in liq) [2022] NZCA 101.

2      Madsen-Ries v Salus Safety Equipment Ltd (in liq), above n 1, at [54].

3      Re Roslea Path Limited (in liq), above n 1, at [157].

Background

[8]                 The Company was incorporated in November 2011 and provided consultancy and advisory services in relation to land settlements. The Company was put into liquidation on 17 May 2017 on the application of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for failing to meet its tax obligations. Vivian Judith Fatupaito and Andrew John Hawkes of KPMG were appointed as joint and several liquidators and costs were awarded to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue of $2,676.00 plus disbursements of

$1098.46 as the petitioning creditor.

[9]                 Due to resignations, the liquidators changed a number of times over the course of the liquidation. The current liquidators are Kristal Pihama and Leon Francis Bowker.

[10]             The liquidators’ memorandum records that on appointment the liquidators and their staff undertook a detailed review of the historical records and affairs of the Company to determine what legal recoveries would be available. This included interviewing the Company's directors to gain an understanding of the entity.

[11]             Following this review, the liquidators and their staff investigated the potential assets of the Company and reconstructed the Company's accounts.

[12]             After obtaining further information from third parties, the liquidators identified an overdrawn shareholder's current account claim. A letter of demand was issued for this claim and settlement discussions were entered into.

[13]             After protracted negotiations and further investigation the parties agreed on a full and final settlement payment.

[14]             The settlement sum agreed was only received in part with default on the outstanding balance.

[15]             The parties agreed to a revised proposal to be satisfied by an expected lump sum from a third party in payment for previous contract work. The lump sum was not

forthcoming for an extended period of time. The third party could not confirm a payment date and eventually ceased communications.

[16]             The liquidators determined it was not economical to continue pursuing the lump sum payment.

[17]             There are no funds available to make a distribution to either the preferential or non-preferential creditors.

[18]             The liquidators notified the petitioning creditor, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, of the level of fees and expenses for which approval is now sought and advise that Inland Revenue provided no objection.

Should the liquidators’ remuneration be approved?

[19]             The hourly rates that have been applied by the liquidators are the rates approved by the Court.

[20]             A summary is included in the memorandum providing a breakdown of the liquidators’ fees by staffing category. In total, 160.75 hours were spent incurring fees of $45,869.00. However $24,996.00 has been written off as insufficient recoveries have been made.

[21]             The average hourly rate prior to write off was $285.00 excluding GST but is only $129.85 following write off.

[22]             The six-monthly reports to the creditors and shareholders record the liquidators’ activities up to the date of each of those reports and provide a detailed fee and disbursement analysis. The notes below that analysis include an invitation to creditors or shareholders to contact the liquidators if they have any queries in relation to the liquidators’ fees.

[23]             As this is a tier 2 liquidation for the purposes of remuneration approval, I am satisfied that the memorandum and associated documents provide sufficient information.

[24]             It appears from this information that the categories of work undertaken were necessary for the winding up of the Company and that the remuneration for which approval is sought reflects the fair value of services rendered by the liquidators.

Result

[25]             For the reasons set out above, the liquidators’ remuneration of $20,873.00 (excluding GST and disbursements) is approved.

Associate Judge Sussock