Tarahau Farming Limited v Shearing Services Kamupene Limited (in liquidation)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 70/2023
[2023] NZSC 129

BETWEEN	TARAHAU FARMING LIMITED Applicant
AND	SHEARING SERVICES KAMUPENE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person G A D Neil and R M G Hindriksen for Respondent
Judgment:	27 September 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

A declaration made in the High Court to the effect that the applicant had validly been placed in voluntary administration under the Companies Act 1993[1] was subsequently overturned by the Court of Appeal (which declared that it had not).[2] The applicant, which is judgment debtor to the respondent, seeks leave to appeal to this Court.
[1]Shearing Services Kamupene Ltd (in liq) v Tarahau Farming Ltd [2021] NZHC 2376 (Whata J).
[2]Shearing Services Kamupene Ltd (in liq) v Tarahau Farming Ltd [2023] NZCA 196 (Cooper P, Gilbert and Courtney JJ).
The sole issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had validly been placed in voluntary administration under the Companies Act. And that would also be the sole issue before us on any appeal from that decision.
Although the applicant was not formally represented, detailed submissions were filed by one of its directors. We have read those. They acknowledge that:
The Court of Appeal was correct in ruling that the voluntary administration of [Tarahau Farming Ltd] was not pursuant to the Companies Act 1993. The [applicant] clearly stated in the High Court that the notice for voluntary administration was under the Tikanga Regulations of Ngatimoerewa Maori Incorporation.
It follows there is no contest on the sole issue that might be addressed on appeal. While the applicant would wish to argue that a voluntary administration pursuant to tikanga should be recognised by New Zealand law, that issue does not arise in this Court given the narrow issue before the Court of Appeal.
Accordingly, it is not necessary in the interests of justice for this Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal.[3]

Result

[3]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(1).

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tarahau Farming Limited sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision that it had not been validly placed in voluntary administration under the Companies Act 1993. The Court of Appeal had overturned the High Court's declaration that the voluntary administration was valid. The applicant, which is a judgment debtor to the respondent, argued that the voluntary administration was conducted under the Tikanga Regulations of Ngatimoerewa Maori Incorporation. The Court of Appeal had held that the voluntary administration was not pursuant to the Companies Act 1993 because the applicant had clearly stated that it was under the Tikanga Regulations.

The sole issue before the Court was whether the applicant had validly been placed in voluntary administration under the Companies Act. The applicant acknowledged that the Court of Appeal was correct in ruling that the voluntary administration was not pursuant to the Companies Act 1993. The applicant also acknowledged that the issue of whether a voluntary administration pursuant to tikanga should be recognised by New Zealand law does not arise in this Court given the narrow issue before the Court of Appeal. The Court held that it is not necessary in the interests of justice for this Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500. The Court held that the issue of whether a voluntary administration pursuant to tikanga should be recognised by New Zealand law is not before the Court and therefore cannot be addressed in this appeal. The Court also held that the applicant had acknowledged the correctness of the Court of Appeal's ruling that the voluntary administration was not pursuant to the Companies Act 1993. Therefore, the Court was not persuaded that it was necessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the proposed appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established