Strategic Finance Ltd ((in Receivership) & (in Liquidation)) and Strategic Nominees Ltd ((in Receivership)) v Bridgman and Sanson

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: White J
• Judgment Date: 09 August 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] NZCA 357
• Docket Number: CA553/2011
• Court: Court of Appeal
• Date: 09 August 2013

BETWEEN

Strategic Finance Limited (In Receivership & in Liquidation) and Strategic Nominees Limited (In Receivership)

Appellants

and

David John Bridgman and Craig Alexander Sanson

First Respondents

and

Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Second Respondent

[2013] NZCA 357

Court:

Arnold, Stevens and White JJ

CA553/2011

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Appeal from High Court decision rejecting appellants’ claims and ordering that funds be paid to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue – appellants were the only remaining secured creditors in the liquidation of Takapuna Procurement Ltd (“Takapuna”) – Commissioner was the only remaining preferential creditor – appellant claimed their general security agreement (“GSA”) over Takapuna's personal property entitled them to all funds held by the liquidators because under the Companies Act 1993, the Commissioner's claim as a preferential creditor was limited to “book debts” and therefore did not include most of the categories of funds at issue – assets of Takapuna were insufficient to meet Commissioner's preferential claim without recourse to personal property subject to appellants’ GSA – what was meaning of term “accounts receivable” for the purposes of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 – what was the nature and scope of the preferential creditor regime and Commissioner's claims in respect of the GST refund – whether appellants entitlement as the remaining secured creditor was defeated.

Counsel:

M J Tingey and T B Fitzgerald for Appellants

No appearance for First Respondents

P W O'Regan and N M H Whittington for Second Respondent

• A The application by the appellants for leave to adduce further evidence is declined.

• B The appeal is allowed in respect of the engineering and construction bonds of $3,000 which are payable to the appellants, but in all other respects the appeal is dismissed.

• C The appellants are to pay the second respondent's costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements. We certify for two counsel.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by White J)

Table of Contents

	Para No
Introduction	[1]
Background	[6]
Development contribution refunds ($451,176.94)	[10]
Engineering and construction bonds ($3,000)	[14]
GST refund ($169,349.86)	[15]
Carter Atmore funds ($158,581.38)	[20]
Strategic's GSA	[23]
The preferential creditor regime	[33]
The meaning of “accounts receivable”	[40]
High Court decision	[43]
Submissions for Strategic	[44]
Our approach	[46]
Text	[47]
Purpose	[65]
Scheme of PPSA	[67]
Legislative history	[68]
Unintended adverse consequences?	[77]
Academic commentary	[81]
Summary	[82]
Application of definition to the funds	[86]
Development contribution refunds	[87]
Engineering and construction bonds	[92]
GST refund	[98]
Carter Atmore funds	[101]
Summary	[106]
Recovery of the GST refund	[107]
Re Condon	[108]
Restitution principles	[121]
Result	[127]

Introduction

1 This appeal involves a dispute between the appellants, Strategic Finance Ltd (in rec and in liq) and Strategic Nominees Ltd (in rec), (Strategic), the only remaining secured creditors in the liquidation of Takapuna Procurement Ltd (Takapuna), and the second respondent, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, (the Commissioner), the only remaining preferential creditor in the liquidation. The dispute relates to various categories of funds totalling $782,108.18 plus accrued interest held by the first respondents, David Bridgman and Craig Sanson (the liquidators of Takapuna) who abide the Court's decision.

2 Strategic claim that their general security agreement (GSA) over Takapuna's personal property entitles them to all the funds held by the liquidators essentially because under the relevant provisions of the Companies Act 1993 the Commissioner's claim as a preferential creditor is limited to “book debts” and therefore does not include most of the categories of funds at issue. Strategic also claim on the basis of other legal principles that one of the categories, namely a GST refund of $169,349.86, released by the Commissioner to Takapuna “in error” after the liquidation, should not in any event be repaid to the Commissioner. 1

3 In the High Court Associate Judge Gendall rejected Strategic's claims and ordered that all the funds be paid to the Commissioner. 2 The grounds for his decision were:

• (a) it would be unfair and unconscionable for the GST refund of $169,349.86 to be retained by the liquidators; 3

• (b) the expression “accounts receivable” in sch 7, cl 2(2) of the Companies Act is not limited to book debts; 4 and

• (c) the funds held by the liquidators of Takapuna are “accounts receivable” and therefore payable to the Commissioner as the only preferential creditor. 5

4 Strategic challenge each of these grounds, but advance their appeal first through grounds (b) and (c). Ground (a) arises only if Strategic are successful in their challenge to grounds (b) and (c). A central question for our determination is the meaning of the term “accounts receivable” for the purposes of the regime established under the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (the PPSA). As the assets of Takapuna are insufficient to meet the Commissioner's preferential claim without recourse to the personal property the subject of Strategic's GSA, the question is whether the funds of $782,108.18 held by the liquidators are available to meet the Commissioner's claim in priority to Strategic's security interest.

5 We first set out the background to the appeal, which is largely undisputed, before addressing the issues raised by Strategic.

Background

6 Takapuna was a property developer whose business included a development in Takapuna called Shoalhaven. Strategic provided Takapuna with a loan facility of up to $10,988,000 plus capitalised interest and fees for the development which was secured by the GSA, dated 20 May 2003, and a second mortgage registered over the Shoalhaven property. The GSA, which gave Strategic security over all of Takapuna's “present and after-acquired personal property, and all of [Takapuna's] present and future rights in relation to any personal property”, was registered on the Personal Property Securities Register. 6

7 On 21 November 2008 the High Court at Auckland put Takapuna into liquidation on the application of the Commissioner. 7 Messrs Grant Burns and

Richard Agnew of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) were appointed as liquidators, but they were subsequently replaced by the first respondents. 8

8 In the course of the liquidation of Takapuna the liquidators received proofs of debt from:

• (a) Strategic claiming $7,056,000 under their securities; and

• (b) the Commissioner claiming $3,625,493.51 as a preferential creditor for GST arrears plus interest and costs.

9 The liquidators have collected funds totalling $782,108.18 plus accrued interest comprising the following four different categories:

• (a) refunds to Takapuna from the North Shore City Council (the NSSC) of:

  • (i) development contributions paid earlier by Takapuna to the Council ($451,176.94);

  • (ii) bonds paid earlier by Takapuna to the Council ($3,000);

• (b) the GST refund of $169,349.86 released by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to Takapuna “in error”; and

• (c) various funds held by Takapuna's solicitors ($158,581.38).

Development contribution refunds ($451,176.94)

10 These funds, which were received by the liquidators from the NSCC, were refunds of development contributions paid by Takapuna to the NSCC prior to the liquidation. The contributions were required from developers on development project approvals under NSCC 2004 and 2006 development contributions policies.

11 In March 2007 the High Court decided in judicial review proceedings not involving Takapuna that the NSCC had made a number of errors of law in adopting its development contribution policies. 9 The Court did not, however, address matters of relief or remedy and no declaration of invalidity was made. 10 Instead it was left to the parties to negotiate those matters in light of the principles in the judgment.

12 There is no evidence before this Court of any negotiations between the parties to the judicial review proceeding as to relief or remedy. Nor is there any evidence of any decision having been made by the NSCC to make any refunds to Takapuna prior to its liquidation on 21 November 2008.

13 The evidence establishes, however, that after the liquidation of Takapuna the following steps were taken by the NSCC:

• (a) on 29 January 2009 the NSCC refunded to the liquidators overpaid development contributions of $2,297.50;

• (b) on 1 July 2009 the NSCC reassessed the development contributions paid under the 2004 and 2006 policies and resolved to pay the difference between the amounts paid by Takapuna and the amounts payable under the reassessed policies (plus interest); and

• (c) on 7 August 2009 the NSCC refunded the development contributions of $448,879.08 to the liquidators.

Engineering and construction bonds ($3,000)

14 Prior to the liquidation, Takapuna paid engineering and construction bonds to the NSCC in connection with the Shoalhaven development. In accordance with standard practice, the bonds were refunded after the NSCC concluded that the development was compliant with the council development code. This occurred on 15 January and 16 April 2009, that is, after the liquidation of Takapuna.

GST refund ($169,349.86)

15 On 3 December 2008, shortly after Takapuna was put into liquidation, the Commissioner repaid $169,349.86 in respect of claimed GST overpayments that Takapuna had made in the period before its liquidation.

16 Although Takapuna was put into liquidation on 21 November...