Vlasic v Zelande Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 14 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-000917

[2019] NZHC 2152

IN THE MATTER OF the liquidation of TE TUMU MIERE LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

BETWEEN

PAUL VLASIC and DEREK AH SAM

Applicants

AND

ZELANDE LIMITED

First Respondent

MĀORI TRUSTEE

Second Respondent

Hearing: 28 August 2019

Appearances:

J Burt for Applicants

B D Gustafson and B M Foster for First Respondent H L Quinlan for Second Respondent

Judgment:

30 August 2019


ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL


VLASIC v ZELANDE LTD & OR [2019] NZHC 2152 [30 August 2019]

[1]    This case has a fixture for one day on 30 October 2019. I am asked to decide a preliminary matter. That was put as a jurisdictional question, but in the event, it has become more a matter of case management. I will, however, address the issue of principle raised by Zelande Ltd.

[2]    Te Tumu Miere Ltd was in the honey business. It was established to produce, harvest and market manuka honey from Māori land blocks. The Māori Trustee is the sole shareholder. In August 2017 Te Tumu Miere Ltd made an agreement with Zelande Ltd, the first respondent, under which it purchased 1500 beehives. Zelande undertook to manage the hives on behalf of Te Tumu Miere Ltd. That was unsuccessful. In July 2018, Zelande Ltd gave notice terminating the management contract. Notwithstanding that termination, arrangements were made for Zelande Ltd to continue to manage the hives. That ran on up until the end of March 2019. In the meantime, in November 2018, the Māori Trustee, as shareholder, resolved that Te Tumu Miere Ltd should be put into liquidation. This is an insolvent liquidation. The applicants are the liquidators of Te Tumu Miere Ltd.  The Māori Trustee says that it is a secured creditor for some

$900,000 under a general security agreement.  Zelande Ltd says that it is owed about

$3 million. It has claimed for unpaid invoices. It says that it carried out salvage work for which it has been not been paid and it is also claiming loss of profits arising from the termination of August 2018. There are also some minor unsecured creditors, owners of Māori land who have claimed for unpaid licence fees for hives kept on their land. In the liquidation there is a contest between Zelande Ltd and the Maori Trustee as to the claim of Zelande Ltd and whether it has any priority because it claims a lien.

[3]    In May this year, the liquidators applied under s 284 of the Companies Act 1993 for directions:

(a)Whether work undertaken on beehives by a beekeeper gives rise to a lien at law;

(b)If direction (a) is answered in the affirmative, whether the first respondent (Zelande) in fact has a lien over hives owned by TTM;

(c)If direction (b) is answered in the affirmative, whether Zelande’s lien has priority over the second respondent’s security interest under a general security agreement dated 1 July…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Vlasic v Zelande Limited and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] NZHC 2152
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Vlasic v Zelande Limited, the applicants, Paul Vlasic and Derek Ah Sam, liquidators of Te Tumu Miere Limited, sought directions from the Court regarding various legal issues arising from the liquidation of Te Tumu Miere Limited. The first respondent, Zelande Limited, contested the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the matter, arguing that the application under section 284 of the Companies Act 1993 was not appropriate for certain claims. The Māori Trustee, the second respondent, claimed to be a secured creditor of Te Tumu Miere Limited. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the liquidators had the authority to seek directions under section 284 of the Companies Act for certain claims and whether Zelande Limited had a lien over the hives it managed.

The Court found that the liquidators had the authority to apply under section 284 of the Companies Act for directions concerning the validity, ranking, and amount of creditors' claims, including Zelande Limited's claim. The Court held that the liquidators' function of considering and accepting claims to determine how to distribute assets fell within the Court's power to supervise the liquidators. The Court also determined that the liquidators were entitled to seek directions for directions (a), (b), and (c) in the application, while contested factual matters under directions (d) and (e) would be the subject of another hearing.

The Court ordered that the liquidators' application for directions under section 284 of the Companies Act was properly brought, and the matters to be decided on the hearing on 30 October 2019 would be (a), (b), and (c) in the application. The Court also directed that appropriate pleadings should be filed to allow the issues to be properly identified and discovery should be granted. The costs for the hearing would be taken into account after the hearing on 30 October when the Court would decide costs generally for the proceeding.

In summary, the Court ruled that the liquidators had the authority to seek directions under section 284 of the Companies Act for certain claims, and the application was properly brought. The contested factual matters would be determined in a later hearing.

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.