Baker v Hodder  NZSC 78 deals with important company law issues, and at the highest level. In a sadly familiar set of facts, this case concerned a farming business run on land owned by a family company which was unsuccessful and ultimately became insolvent, forcing the sale of the farm. It is worth noting as it is the first decision by the Supreme Court on the ‘prejudiced shareholders provision’, contained in section 174 of the Companies Act.
In most circumstances, parties entering into a contract with a company will be entitled to assume that the company has complied with all its internal procedures to authorise entry into the contract. Section 18 of the Companies Act 1993 was enacted for this very purpose. However, the recent Court of Appeal case of Bishop Warden Property Holdings Limited v Autumn Tree Limited illustrates that this is not always the case, and this assumption is subject to a few notable exceptions.
Since the passing of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (“HSWA”), there has been some confusion as to how the court should approach health and safety sentencing. Carl discusses a recent case that clarifies the regime around health and safety fines.
In Easy Park Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue  NZCA 296, the Court of Appeal has affirmed that a lease surrender payment to a professional landlord is a revenue receipt under the Income Tax Act 2007.