Companies ordered to be wound up

Press, 2 September 1986, Page 4

Companies ordered to be wound up

Two companies associated with Frank De Bont were ordered to be wound up after a defended hearing in the High Court yesterday. The orders were made by Mr Justice Greig. The companies are

Guardsman Properties (1984), which was incorporated on July 2, 1984 with a nominal capital of $lOO, and which, according to the Court documents, has no paid-up capital, and Saffron Holdings, Ltd, which was incorporated on December 11, 1970, with a paid-up capital of $2OOO. Both winding-up petitions were in respect of one debt. The petitioning creditor, Arthur Russell Idiens, a builder, gave evidence that he was owed $74,900. He was represented by Mr Scott Fairclough.

Mr Nicholas Till appeared for the debtor company, and Miss Bridget Draper for the Inland Revenue Department, which supported the wind-ing-up petitions. Costs of $750 were awarded to Mr Idiens, of $l5O to the Inland Revenue Department, and of $2OO to Zip Holdings, Ltd, which had filed a petition to wind up Guardsman Properties. Zip was represented by Mr Jeremy Daley. His Honour rejected the technical legal defence raised by the debtor companies that the contract debt had not been made

in accordance with the disclosures required under the Credit Contracts Act.

The debt arose from a purchase of a property by Saffron Holdings from Mr Idiens for $90,000, including chattels of $6500. Mr Idiens left $70,000 in the property by way of a second mortgage at 14 per cent. The deal was made in July 1985. The mortgage was guaranteed by Guardsman Properties.

His Honour said that there was no dispute that the amount was unpaid. The evidence given by the petitioner had been unchallenged. The petitions were opposed on the technical legal grounds in that it was alleged that there had been inadequate disclosure under the Credit Contracts Act, and that the petitioner was not entitled to enforce the contract.

“My conclusion is that the contract and the mortgage is not a credit contract in the terms of the section of the Act, and the petitioner is entitled to enforce his claim and he is entitled to the orders for winding up,” Mr Justice Greig said.