Wilding v Te Mania Livestock Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 77 min read

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2014-409-899 [2017] NZHC 717

BETWEEN

TIMOTHY WILDING

First Plaintiff

TE MANIA PROPERTIES LIMITED Second Plaintiff

AND

TE MANIA LIVESTOCK LIMITED First Defendant

W. H.  HOLDINGS LIMITED Second Defendant

JOHN HARRINGTON Third Defendant

HOONG BEE TECK Fourth Defendant

WONG CHUN WIN Fifth Defendant

HONG WEIGUO Sixth Defendant

Hearing:

21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30 June 2016, 1, 4, 6, 7, 8 July 2016,

7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30

November 2016, 1, 2 December 2016 to March 2017 (further memoranda, evidence and submissions)

Appearances:

P J Dale and V E Fletcher for First and Second Plaintiffs
T J Mackenzie for First Defendant
B M Russell and R J Hopkins for Second, Fourth and Fifth
Defendants
I G Hunt and C Light for Third Defendant

Reasons:

12 April 2017

NICHOLAS DAVIDSON J - REASONS FOR INTERIM JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 5 APRIL 2017

WILDING & ANR v TE MANIA LIVESTOCK LTD & ORS [2017] NZHC 717 [12 April 2017]

INDEX

A.INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. [1] The Te Mania Aberdeen Angus Stud .................................................... [2] Te Mania Livestock Ltd (TML)............................................................. [8] TML Shareholding................................................................................ [11] Land leased by TML............................................................................. [14] Te Mania Properties Limited (TMPL) .................................................. [15] Development of relationships ............................................................... [18] Why has TML come to this pass? ......................................................... [23]

2012...................................................................................................... [27]
2013...................................................................................................... [30]

2014...................................................................................................... [43] The entry of the lawyers ....................................................................... [64] The condition of the young bulls .......................................................... [67] Mediation ............................................................................................. [69] Terra Firma .......................................................................................... [78] DOC land ............................................................................................. [79] Mr Harrington’s employment claim .................................................... [80] Derivative proceedings ....................................................................... [81] Application to remove Mr Harrington and Ms Adams as directors..... [83] Attempt by Mr Harrington to liquidate TML ....................................... [84] Missing hay ......................................................................................... [85] Hacking of emails................................................................................. [86] Heartland Bank ................................................................................... [90] The valuation exercise ......................................................................... [93] The Oversight Committee .................................................................... [99]

A further perspective ............................................................................ [102] Wadi...................................................................................................... [104] Mr Haugh and Mr Hazlett ................................................................... [105]

B.       THE PLEADINGS ............................................................................ [108] Mr Hong – Sixth Defendant ................................................................ [108] Mr Wilding’s amended pleading........................................................... [109] Mr Wilding’s first cause of action ....................................................... [111] The fate of the (abandoned) first cause of action................................. [117] Mr Wilding’s second cause of action ................................................... [126] Mr Wilding’s further (the fifth) cause of action ................................... [129] Te Mania Properties Ltd - third and fourth causes of  action .............. [130] The First Defendant - Te Mania Livestock Ltd ................................... [132] Third Defendant – Mr Harrington ....................................................... [135] Counterclaims ...................................................................................... [137] Second, Fourth and Fifth Defendants – WHHL, Bee Teck and

Mr Wong .............................................................................................. [139] The track of these Reasons for Interim Judgment ............................... [140] The Shareholders’ Agreement............................................................... [142] Section 174 Companies Act 1993......................................................... [143] Liquidation under s 174(2)(g) ............................................................. [150]

C.ANTECEDENT LITIGATION (BEFORE TRIAL) ....................... [151] DOC grazing licence............................................................................ [152] Derivative proceedings and application for removal of directors ....... [153] Liquidation proceedings against TML ................................................ [159]

D.ISSUES ................................................................................................ [168] (1)  The conduct of the parties ........................................................... [168] The TML accounts ........................................................................ [171] Underlying pressures and resentment ........................................... [177] Personalities ................................................................................. [179]

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wilding v Te Mania Livestock Ltd 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
[2017] NZHC 717
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves a dispute between shareholders of Te Mania Livestock Limited (TML), a renowned stud cattle breeder in New Zealand. The primary issue for the court was whether TML should be put into liquidation or if the first plaintiff, Timothy Wilding, should have the opportunity to purchase the shares of other shareholders who wish to exit their investment. The court held that Mr Wilding should have the opportunity to purchase the shares of the defendants, rather than TML being put into liquidation. The court determined a fair value for the shares based on the evidence presented and the specific circumstances of the case.

The court considered various factors in reaching its decision, including the condition of the cattle, the value of the semen, and the overall financial position of TML. The court also addressed the issue of email hacking, which it found to be a serious breach of privacy and confidentiality, but ultimately decided that it should not result in Mr Wilding being disqualified from purchasing the shares.

The court emphasized the importance of achieving a clean break between the shareholders and avoiding further litigation. It also recognized the value of the Te Mania stud and the importance of preserving its reputation. The court concluded that allowing Mr Wilding to purchase the shares of the other shareholders would provide the best outcome for the company and its stakeholders.

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.