| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Auckland |
| Reference No | AA 385C/04 |
| Determination date | 16 December 2004 |
| Member | L Robinson |
| Representation | T Drake ; C Patterson, S Gollin |
| Location | Auckland |
| Parties | Snaith and Anor v Stone and Associates Ltd |
| Other Parties | Smits |
| Summary | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Ex parte application for variation of orders made on numerous grounds – Respondent sought to rescind orders – Advised respondent in receivership – Respondent alleged orders put respondent in precarious position and that their solicitors may have sought leave to withdraw as solicitors on record – Applicants sought to vary orders to take into account that respondent may instruct other solicitors – Applicants had good arguable case on substantive claims - Risk of dissipation – Real risk respondent’s manager intended to act to deal with respondent’s assets with dominant purpose of defeating applicants - Appeared manager intended to do so by liquidating respondent – Satisfied orders made should be continued but varied as specified in determination |
| Result | Orders accordingly ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | Companies Act 1993 Schedule 7;Receivership Act 1993 s30 |
| Cases Cited | Brink's-MAT v Elcombe [1988] 3 All ER 188 (CA);Carter Holt Ltd v Fletcher Holdings Ltd [1980] 2 NZLR 80;Gosling v Gaskill [1987] AC 875;Palmer v Lees Power Sed Ltd (1995) 8 PRNZ 694;Parsons v Graham unreported, High Court, Auckland, Baragwanath J, 13 December 2002, CP 601-IM01;Ron West Motors Ltd v BCNZ (No 2) [1989] 3 NZLR 520 |
| Number of Pages | 6 |
| PDF File Link: | PDF file not available for download, please contact us to request a copy. |