In Cook v Mortgage Debenture, Mr Cook applied to be joined to a proceeding that was being continued by a claimant company after it had been placed into administration. The issue was whether the Court's consent was required on the basis that the application was against a company in administration (the English legislation being similar to section 248 of the Companies Act 1993). The Court concluded that, while the moratorium covered legal proceedings against a company in administration or liquidation, it does not cover defensive steps in proceedings brought (or continued) by a company in administration. Accordingly, leave was not required for the application.
DHC Assets ltd v Toon is a recent New Zealand example of the Court granting leave under section 248 for a proceeding to be commenced against a company in liquidation. DHC claimed that Vaco Investments had failed to pay the final payment in a construction contract and threatened adjudication proceedings under the Construction Contracts Act. Vaco was voluntarily liquidated, appointing Toon as liquidator who rejected DHC's proof of debt. The Court rejected Toon's arguments that the debt lacked merit and that time limits prevented the bringing of the proceeding and granted DHC's application for leave to commence adjudication proceedings under section 248.