Video | Agriculture | Confidence | Economy | Energy | Employment | Finance | Media | Property | RBNZ | Science | SOEs | Tax | Technology | Telecoms | Tourism | Transport | Search

 


Judgment: Worldwide NZ v NZ Venue and Event Management

[Judgment: SC_50_2013__Worldwide_v_NZ_Venue_and_Event.pdf]

Supreme Court of New Zealand

Date 11 August 2014

MEDIA RELEASE – FOR IMMEDIATE PUBLICATION

(SC 50/2013)

[2014] NZSC 108

PRESS SUMMARY

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz.

Worldwide NZ LLC (Worldwide) and NZ Venue and Event Management Ltd (Venue Management) were parties to a joint venture to construct and operate Vector Arena. The joint venture was formed under a deed of trust, with Quay Park Arena Management Ltd (QPAM Ltd) as corporate trustee. Worldwide held a 25 percent interest (holding “B” units and shares) in the joint venture and QPAM Ltd. Venue Management and an associated company held a 75 percent interest (holding “A” units and shares).

On 18 January 2006, a receiver was appointed to the parent company of Worldwide, triggering a pre-emptive right of purchase of its “B” units and shares. This was exercised by Venue Management by letter of 26 April 2006. The trust deed did not set a mechanism of fixing the price of the “B” units and shares, and as a result, legal proceedings ensued. In 2008 the Court of Appeal construed the trust deed as requiring the transaction to occur at a “fair market value”.

The fair market value was fixed by the High Court in a judgment of 24 November 2011. Potter J ordered payment to made within 28 days and also held that interest under s 87(1) of the Judicature Act 1908 was payable from 26 April 2006 up to the date of payment on the fair market value that had been determined by the Court.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that s 87(1) of the Judicature Act did not apply and no interest was payable. The Court of Appeal came to that conclusion for three reasons: first, the Court of Appeal held that a “debt” under s 87(1) had to be an ascertained or readily ascertainable sum and the market value of the “B” shares and units was neither; secondly, the Court of Appeal held that no cause of action arose on the date when the pre-emptive rights were exercised by Venue Management; thirdly, the Court of Appeal held that Worldwide’s proceeding was not one “for the recovery of debt or damages” and was merely a proceeding for a declaratory judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously held that Potter J was entitled to award interest on the value fixed in respect of the “B” units and shares.

First, the Court has held that the legislative history, policy rationale, caselaw and wording of s 87(1) lead to the conclusion that the phrase “debt or damages” should be seen as a composite expression covering all proceedings where a claim for money is made and is not limited to ascertained or readily ascertainable sums.

Secondly, the Court has held that, from the date when the pre-emptive right was exercised, Venue Management was under an obligation to pay the market value of the units and shares to Worldwide. The cause of action therefore arose at that point.

Thirdly, the Court has held that Worldwide’s proceeding was one for the “recovery of debt or damages”. Worldwide sought not only ascertainment of the fair market value of the shares, but also payment for them, as well as interest from the date the pre-emptive right was exercised. Worldwide was thus seeking a judgment for the recovery of that sum.

Finally, the Court has rejected Venue Management’s submission that Potter J should not have exercised her discretion under s 87(1) to award interest as compensation for Worldwide being kept out of its money.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court relating to interest is re-instated.

[Judgment: SC_50_2013__Worldwide_v_NZ_Venue_and_Event.pdf]
of the Judicature Act 1908 was payable from 26 April 2006 up to the date of payment on the fair market value that had been determined by the Court.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that s 87(1) of the Judicature Act did not apply and no interest was payable. The Court of Appeal came to that conclusion for three reasons: first, the Court of Appeal held that a “debt” under s 87(1) had to be an ascertained or readily ascertainable sum and the market value of the “B” shares and units was neither; secondly, the Court of Appeal held that no cause of action arose on the date when the pre-emptive rights were exercised by Venue Management; thirdly, the Court of Appeal held that Worldwide’s proceeding was not one “for the recovery of debt or damages” and was merely a proceeding for a declaratory judgment.

The Supreme Court has unanimously held that Potter J was entitled to award interest on the value fixed in respect of the “B” units and shares.

First, the Court has held that the legislative history, policy rationale, caselaw and wording of s 87(1) lead to the conclusion that the phrase “debt or damages” should be seen as a composite expression covering all proceedings where a claim for money is made and is not limited to ascertained or readily ascertainable sums.

Secondly, the Court has held that, from the date when the pre-emptive right was exercised, Venue Management was under an obligation to pay the market value of the units and shares to Worldwide. The cause of action therefore arose at that point.

Thirdly, the Court has held that Worldwide’s proceeding was one for the “recovery of debt or damages”. Worldwide sought not only ascertainment of the fair market value of the shares, but also payment for them, as well as interest from the date the pre-emptive right was exercised. Worldwide was thus seeking a judgment for the recovery of that sum.

Finally, the Court has rejected Venue Management’s submission that Potter J should not have exercised her discretion under s 87(1) to award interest as compensation for Worldwide being kept out of its money.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court relating to interest is re-instated.

Contact person: Gordon Thatcher, Supreme Court Registrar (04) 471 6921


© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Business Headlines | Sci-Tech Headlines

 

Post-Post: Brian Roche To Step Down As NZ Post CEO

Brian Roche will step down as chief executive of New Zealand Post in April 2017, having led the state-owned postal service's drive to adjust to shrinking mail volumes with a combination of cost cuts, asset sales, modernisation and expansion of new businesses. More>>

ALSO:

Company Results: Air NZ Rides The Tourism Boom With Record Full-Year Earnings

Air New Zealand has ridden the tourism boom and staved off increased competition to deliver the best full-year earnings in its 76-year history. More>>

ALSO:

New PGP: Sheep Milk Industry Gets $12.6M Crown Funding

The Sheep - Horizon Three programme aims to develop "a market driven, end-to-end value chain generating annual revenues of between $200 million and $700 million by 2030," according to a joint statement. More>>

ALSO:

Half Full: Fonterra Raises Forecast Milk Price

Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited today increased its 2016/17 forecast Farmgate Milk Price by 50 cents to $4.75 per kgMS. When combined with the forecast earnings per share range for the 2017 financial year of 50 to 60 cents, the total payout available to farmers in the current season is forecast to be $5.25 to $5.35 before retentions. More>>

ALSO:

Keep Digging: Seabed Ironsands Miner TransTasman Tries Again

The first company to attempt to gain a resource consent to mine ironsands from the ocean floor in New Zealand's Exclusive Economic Zone has lodged a new application containing fresh scientific and other evidence it hopes will persuade regulators after their initial application was turned down in 2014. More>>

Wool Pulled: Duvets Sold As ‘Premium Alpaca’ Mostly Sheep’s Wool

Rotorua business Budge Collection Limited (Budge) and sole director, Sun Dong Kim, were convicted and fined a total of $71,250 in Auckland District Court after each pleading guilty to four charges of misrepresenting how much alpaca fibre was in their duvets. More>>

Get More From Scoop

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Business
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news