New Zealand Court of Appeal

Liquidator remuneration, hearsay evidence, broad-brush approach, expenses jurisdiction

IBC Japan Ltd v Jones [2026] NZCA 193 (26 May 2026)  

Unsuccessful appeal and cross appeal - Liquidators of Autoterminal applied to fix remuneration at $1,232,801 and expenses at $618,706 – Principal creditor (IBC) opposed, contending reasonable remuneration no more than $600,000 - HC fixed remuneration at $1,064,429 and approved expenses in full – IBC appealed saying amounts fixed should be substantially lower in both remuneration and disbursements – Liquidators cross-appealed saying the full remuneration should have been approved – 

CA dismissed hearsay challenge to co-liquidator's time records – Records admissible under s 18 and s 19 Evidence Act 2006 as reliable business records created in ordinary course of insolvency engagement – Requiring all staff to give evidence would have caused undue delay and expense – 

CA confirmed arbitrary assessment of liquidator remuneration was never appropriate – Statement in Madsen-Ries v Salus Safety Equipment Ltd (in liq) that broad-brush approach acceptable provided there is exercise of judicial judgment did not reflect Re Roslea Path Ltd (in liq) – Remuneration fixed at $1,064,429 upheld – 

CA held s 284(1)(e) Companies Act 1993 did not extend to expenses but court had jurisdiction under general law to review whether expenses properly incurred – Liquidators are fiduciaries whose right of indemnity was limited to expenses properly incurred – Full expenses of $618,706 upheld -  

Appeal and cross appeal dismissed. 

Unless order, relief from non-compliance, proportionality, striking out proceedings, appeal as of right

Quian v Dong [2026] NZCA 209 (26 May 2026)

Successful appeal by Q and his property company – Q claimed they had a joint venture agreement with respondent D to develop a property at Greenhithe and contributed over $1.5 million towards it – Q says D sold the property without their knowledge or consent and brought HC proceedings to recover their interest – HC made unless order requiring Q to file a common bundle of documents by 7 April 2025 or their case would be dismissed – Bundle filed that night was non-compliant and the proceeding was struck out – Q applied for relief from that outcome and HCJ declined – 

CA held Q had right to appeal without needing leave because refusing relief from an unless order effectively ends the proceeding – 

CA held HCJ made three errors – (1) HCJ wrongly treated Q as having a history of deliberate non-compliance when in fact they had only once failed to file a memorandum about their legal representation, which an earlier Judge had not even sanctioned – (2) HCJ accepted D would be prejudiced without properly examining how serious that prejudice actually was – No counsel said the defendants could not proceed to trial at all – (3) HCJ never asked whether striking out a substantial claim that had been proceeding for four years was a proportionate response to a failure to file a bundle of documents on time – 

Appeal allowed – Proceeding reinstated and remitted to HC to be timetabled to trial. 

Probate, overseas executor, affidavit using copy of will, moot appeal

Re Watson [2026] NZCA 210 (28 May 2026)

Unsuccessful application for leave to appeal – Executors applied for probate – One executor resided in Australia and swore his affidavit using a copy of the will rather than the original – Probate was declined by the Registrar which was upheld by the HC – Probate ultimately granted after the executor filed a supplementary affidavit producing the original will – Application for leave to appeal therefore moot –

CA accepted was arguable HCJ erred in relying on Re Crawford as authority requiring all executors to inspect the original will – In Re Crawford original will had been destroyed entirely and Court was not asked to consider whether all executors must sight the original will when produced to Court by one of them –

CA held however that even allowing for that arguable error there was no basis on which to interpret r 27.4 High Court Rules in the way applicants contended – A single incident where probate was granted without strict compliance with r 27.4 did not demonstrate real uncertainty about what Rules required –

CA noted whether there was a case for change to current requirements of r 27.4 HCR was a matter for the Rules Committee –

Application for leave to appeal declined.

New Zealand High Court

Sentence, drugged driving causing injury and death 

R v Paki [2026] NZHC 1489 (28 May 2026)

Sentencing for drugged and dangerous driving resulting in death of one and injury of two others – Driving while licence suspended – On bail for driving while suspended at time of crash – Knowingly drove car in bad repair - Cannabis – Blood tests showed THC levels of 10-20 nanograms, over 3 times the high-risk threshold – Alcohol levels around 50-90 mg/100 ml –

Starting point 5.5 years' imprisonment – Discount for mitigating factors included 10 per cent for remorse with limited rehabilitation prospects, 20 per cent for guilty plea to amended charge, and 4-month reduction for time spent on EM bail – No reparation sought as no means to pay – Outstanding fines remitted in light of prison sentence –

Sentenced to 3.5 years' imprisonment and disqualified from driving for 4 years.

Sentencing, manslaughter, family violence

R v Ali [2026] NZHC 1441 (29 May 2026)

Sentencing for manslaughter following fatal assault of infant son while in defendant’s sole care – Child suffered catastrophic abdominal injuries – Medical evidence established injuries were caused by significant force and inconsistent with CPR or accidental injury – Earlier violence towards child’s mother during pregnancy also considered –

Starting point of 9 years' imprisonment for manslaughter under band two of Taueki v R due to extreme violence, vulnerability of victim, and breach of parental trust – 10 month uplift for assault with intent to injure and assault on a person in a family relationship – Discounts for youth, personal background, remorse, guilty pleas and time spent on EM bail – End sentence 6 years' imprisonment – Concurrent sentences 7 months' and 3 months' imprisonment on assault charges – Emphasis on denunciation and deterrence for violence against vulnerable children.