Seeking to keep up appearances in the face of their failing business, the Chapmans claimed a Toyota Landcruiser was their own personal property, quickly changing their mind when liquidators for website developer Attractum then demanded payment of $86,400.
Mark and Pauline Chapman set up Tauranga-based Attractum Ltd in 2008, offering branding and website services. It was in financial difficulty by 2011, the High Court was told. Six years later it was in liquidation for unpaid GST and ACC payments. Evidence was given of steps taken to work round liquidity difficulties. Inland Revenue agreed two consecutive rescheduling arrangements for overdue GST payments; neither were honoured by the Chapmans. When signing off on Attractum’s annual accounts, the Chapmans signed support agreements stating they promised to provide financial support for company debts. In fact, they did not. The High Court was told they continued to draw down company cash for their own use even though their company was insolvent.
The High Court ordered the Chapmans pay $378,500 to their company: money owed Inland Revenue and Accident Compensation, liquidation fees and funds taken from the company. After telling liquidators their Toyota Landcruiser could not be seized because it was not a company asset, liquidators added $86,464 to their bill for vehicle costs and expenses charged through Attractum’s books. The Chapmans then changed their mind; the Toyota Landcruiser was a company asset after all and should be handed over.
Attractum Ltd v. Chapman – High Court (28.02.20)
20.042