New Zealand: Statutory demand procedure available to liquidators to collect voidable transactions

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Damien Grant and Stephen Khov v Lotus Gardens Limited [2014] NZCA 127 overturns a High Court decision which held that liquidators could not use the statutory demand process to collect monies under transactions that had been set aside under the voidable transaction provisions of the Companies Act 1993 (the "Act").

The Court of Appeal held that s 295 of the Act is not the only process available to liquidators to recover transactions that have been set aside. Section 295 of the Act sets out the various discretionary orders a Court can make following a transaction being set aside.

Despite some media commentary suggesting otherwise, the implications of this decision for creditors are not significant, as the considerations under s 295 and the defence under s 296 will still be available, regardless of the procedure a liquidator adopts. That said, in some cases, liquidators may well use this option as it will be procedurally simpler.

The Facts

Damien Grant and Stephen Khov were appointed as liquidators of Quantum Grow Ltd on 20 March 2012. The liquidators investigated payments by Quantum Grow Ltd to a related company, Lotus Gardens Ltd, and identified $25,576.88 worth of payments they considered to be insolvent transactions under s 292. The liquidators wrote to Lotus Gardens asking what the payments were for on three occasions in May, July and September 2012 and received no response.

On 15 October 2012 a notice to set aside a voidable transaction under s 294 was served on Lotus Gardens. Lotus Gardens did not raise an objection within the 20 working day timeframe required under the Act.

The liquidators wrote to Lotus Gardens on 15 November 2010 pointing out that no objection had been received, that the transactions had been automatically set aside and making demand for $25,576.88. The letter warned that if no payment was received the liquidators would initiate proceedings in the High Court confirming that the transactions were set aside. Again Lotus Gardens did not respond.

At this stage the liquidators declined to follow the "usual" procedure under s 295 and rather issued a statutory demand under s 289. The demand recorded an indebtedness of Lotus Gardens to the liquidators of Quantum Grow Ltd (in liquidation) in the sum of $25,576.88 for non-payment of voided transactions. It required that sum to be paid within 15 working days of the service of the notice.

Lotus Gardens did not apply to set aside the statutory demand nor make payment under it. Accordingly, the liquidators then filed a notice of proceeding and statement of claim to put Lotus Gardens into liquidation.

On 8 February 2013 Lotus Gardens filed an application for leave to extend the time for filing a statement of defence and leave to appear. Leave was granted and a statement of defence filed. That defence relied on, amongst other things, that (a) a debt can only arise on an order under s 295; and (b) in any event, Lotus Gardens was merely a conduit for funds paid by Quantum in reduction of its debt to BNZ. The liquidation application was heard in the High Court on 10 April 2013.

The High Court held that the liquidators had followed a procedure that was unavailable to them when attempting to recover the voidable transactions. That decision was appealed by the liquidators.

The Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court decision and held that while s 295 is the usual process, it was not the only method a liquidator could use to obtain orders to set transactions aside.

The Court of Appeal did not agree with the High Court that the Act had effected a significant change in the liquidators' ability to recover monies paid under a set-aside transaction. The Court said that, although under the Companies Act 1955 the test was intention-based rather than effects-based, there was still a procedure in place whereby a liquidator could initiate a setting aside and, if no steps had been taken within the statutory timeframe, the transaction was set aside by operation of the statute.

Ultimately, the Court agreed with the central planks of the liquidators' argument; those being (a) where a transaction is set aside under s 294 due to a failure to object within the required timeframe, the creditor automatically comes under an obligation to repay the sum demanded; and (b) notwithstanding s 295, there are common law rules that remain in force which have the effect that, upon a setting aside under s 294, obligations come into effect without requiring a court order1.

The Court was of the view that Parliament expressly contemplated a court ordering recovery of property that was the subject of a voidable transaction through processes other than those set out in the Act by use of the express words in s 296(3).

The Court looked at the purposes of the Act which, among others, were to provide for straight-forward and fair procedures for realising the dispersed assets of insolvent companies. On applying the purposive approach to interpretation the Court said there was no reason why an order under s 295 should be treated as the exclusive method for a liquidator to obtain an order following a setting aside. Moreover, the Court considered that s 295 did not use exclusive or mandatory language excluding any other remedy.

In coming to this conclusion the Court considered its broad discretion to set aside a statutory demand under s 290. They held that if the claim of the liquidators is outweighed by some factor making it plainly unjust for liquidation to ensue then no liquidation would be ordered. If there was a receipt of the property where the conditions of s 296(3) arguably could be made out, then the court would refuse to make an order. Further, if there were factors that might lead a court to decline to make an order for payment of the sum sought under s 295 of the Act, or in the alternative for some different order to be made, then that could also be a consideration that would persuade a court to refuse to liquidate the company under s 290.

Turning to the facts, it was then held that there was no arguable defence that the payments to Lotus Gardens were as a conduit. Therefore, it did not consider the statutory demand should be set aside. The Court of Appeal concurred with the High Court that a defence under s 296(3) was not available to Lotus Gardens and accordingly an order for liquidation of Lotus Gardens was made.

Implications of the Court of Appeal decision

While the procedure a liquidator can use to recover transactions that have been set aside has been widened by the Court of Appeal's decision, the relevant considerations open to the court in making such an order have not.

A party subject to an alternative process cannot be placed in a worse substantive position because the liquidator has chosen an unorthodox recovery route. The considerations under s 295 and s 296(3) will still be open to and relevant to the court's decision regardless of the procedure a liquidator chooses to recover the transaction.

The timeframes for responding to set aside a statutory demand or file a notice of opposition to a s 295 application are the same - ten working days.

Importantly, the Judges in Court of Appeal noted2 that they did not wish to be seen as encouraging the use of the statutory demand processes as a remedy for liquidators claiming recovery for set aside transactions. They went on to say that the s 295 procedure is designed to deal with remedies following setting aside and it is good practice to utilise that section. In doing so, the Court of Appeal sounded a warning to liquidators who use the statutory demand procedure that they could well find that they have taken an unnecessary step and are faced with a Court that refuses to make an order for liquidation. That would leave them facing costs and still having to apply under s 295, having wasted creditors' funds on an unnecessary step.


1Westpac Banking Corporation v Nangeela Properties Limited [1986] 2 NZLR 1 (CA); McKinnon v Falla Holdings NZ Limited (in liq) (1999) 8 NZCLC 262.

2Grant & Khov v Lotus Gardens Limited [2014] NZCA 127 at [46]

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions