Insights & Articles

On 30 October 2020 the Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment in the context of contracts of guarantee in the case of Brougham v Regan [2020] NZSC 118. A summary of the key facts of the matter and important points in the Court's decision follow.

Section 55 of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 ("CCCFA") provides that a person who is unable reasonably, because of illness, injury loss of employment, the end of a relationship, or other reasonable cause, to meet their obligations under a consumer credit contract and who reasonably expects to be able to discharge their obligations if the terms of the contract were changed as provided for under the CCCFA may apply to a creditor to agree to that change. In the present Covid-19 lockdown, we expect these provisions to be tested and both debtors and creditors need to know their rights and responsibilities in these sorts of situations.

In Mainzeal1 the former directors were held liable for a breach of section 135 of the Act. Richard Yan, (who was the founder and main shareholder of Mainzeal's parent company, Richina Pacific) was ordered to pay compensation of $36M. Each of the other directors (Shipley, Tilby and Gomm) were held liable to contribute $6M each towards that $36M.

In accordance with Section 131 of the Companies Act 1993 ("Act"), directors have a duty to act in good faith and in what they genuinely believe to be the best interests of the company. While it may be expected that directors should always behave in such a manner, and not place their personal interests ahead of the company's, various judgments have explored the extent of this duty and provided more information about the considerations director should take account of when exercising their powers.

At one time or another, all businesses confront the unpleasant task of collecting outstanding fees for the services or products they have provided. When a client refuses to pay an outstanding invoice, recovering the money due may turn into a drawn-out process, even when the amount owed appears un-contentious. Engaging a solicitor to assist with the debt recovery process has the benefit of both impressing on the debtor your commitment to pursuing the debt and simplifying an otherwise frustrating process.

What do you do when you are chasing a company for a debt and despite your requests, pleas, calls and curses, the company is failing or refusing to pay? The statutory demand process may be suitable in such circumstances.

They say you shouldn’t break up with your boyfriend or girlfriend via text…but why not? In the case of Templeton UQ Limited v Watts & Hughes Limited, Templeton's application was served via email, a method not permitted under the Companies Act 1993. As a result, the application was struck out, demonstrating the critical importance of following prescribed service methods. These are both examples of when you fail to communicate appropriately, things don’t go well!