10 June 2022

Director Disqualification: Olliver v. Registrar of Companies

Unsuccessfully challenging Companies Office’ four year ban from acting as a company director, Greg Olliver blamed his estranged spouse Sarah Sparks for BBG Holdings’ failure, an allegation she disputes.

BBG Holdings Ltd was controlled by Mr Olliver. It is in liquidation, insolvent. Unsecured creditors will be repaid in part, according to the most recent liquidation report.  The liquidator comments that dealing with disputed claims totalling $7.9 million from entities controlled by Mr Olliver led to increased liquidation costs; all allied to BBG’s entitlement to receive payment of  $836,000 for subdivision earthworks.

Mr Olliver said BBG’s financial difficulties had their genesis in his relationship with Ms Sparks whom he married in 2000.  An acrimonious split has seen claim and counter claim over ownership and control of properties in Auckland’s eastern suburbs. Mr Olliver alleges steps she took without his knowledge frustrated subdivision plans, causing secured creditor BNZ to step in.

In 2021, Companies Office exercised its administrative powers to ban him from acting as a company director.  It alleged Mr Olliver was reckless in his management of BBG, using the company as a vehicle for his own personal benefit with disregard for company creditors.  Mr Olliver took to the High Court asking further evidence be taken into account. Companies Office did not appreciate the full picture, he said.  Problems at BBG were a direct consequence of his former spouse’s litigious behaviour, he alleged.

Justice Wylie ruled against reconsideration of the four year ban.  The further evidence was of no or limited relevance, he said.  It runs to nearly 500 pages.  It is largely a self-serving narrative in which Mr Olliver seeks to clear himself of allegations of mismanagement, he said.

Mr Olliver had every opportunity to provide Companies Office with all relevant evidence before the ban was imposed, Justice Wylie ruled.

Olliver v. Registrar of Companies – High Court (10.06.22)

22.102