Taonga: Sixtus v. Hokotehi Moriori Trust

  

Remains of an ancient waka found by chance in 2024 on the north coast of Rekohu in Chatham Islands led Catherine Sixtus to claim an ancestral interest on the basis that it was constructed in what is now modern day Germany and brought to New Zealand by her ancestors.  Ruling the waka to be Maori taonga, with ownership is to be decided under the Protected Objects Act, the Maori Appellate Court dismissed any suggestion of German historical links.

This Act gives special statutory protection to what are classified as taonga tuturu: objects more than fifty years old relating to Maori culture or history which have been manufactured in New Zealand by Maori or brought to New Zealand by Maori.

Ms Sixtus has no standing to bring any claim in respect of the waka, the Maori Appellate Court ruled.  The word Maori does not include people solely of pakeha or European descent.

Ms Sixtus argued, unsuccessfully, that since the designation Maori did not exist in early European colonisation of New Zealand, later adoption of the generic word can be taken to include all who have come to settle in New Zealand, including her German forebears.

The Appellate Court said the word Maori now has a defined statutory meaning, which does not include those having only European descent.

Even if it did, Ms Sixtus faces a difficult scientific obstacle; preliminary testing of the waka identifies that it is made of New Zealand sourced wood.

Mr Sixtus’ response is that the wood may have been taken to Europe on HMS Endeavour after Captain Cook’s first visit to New Zealand in 1769, fashioned into a waka in the Hanseatic States, later coming into possession of Moriori living on Rekohu.

Protected Objects Act ownership of the waka is yet to be resolved.

Ownership lies with the Crown, unless specific Maori ownership can be proved.

Two separate Chatham Island Moriori trusts are jointly seeking to resolve questions of ownership.

Sixtus v. Hokotehi Moriori Trust – Maori Appellate Court (21.01.26)

26.064

Freezing Order: Tianjin Junyuan Technology v. Cheng

  

Enforcing a China court order for repayment of a RMB fifty million loan, the High Court in New Zealand was suspicious of claims the debt had been repaid with Weihong Cheng rapidly reorganised her financial affairs on learning of steps taken to enforce the overseas judgment against her New Zealand assets.

In 2018, Ms Cheng and her husband Shiping Tong guaranteed their company’s RMB 50 million borrowing from Tianjin Junyuan Technology; approximately NZD 10.8 million at the time.

Junyuan Technology is incorporated in China.

When the one year loan was uplifted, Mr Tong transferred 83.8 million shares in Hong Kong listed company Lisi Group to Junyuan Technology.

Ms Cheng was to later argue Junyuan had sold-down these shares; the debt has been repaid, she claims.

Junyuan Technology says the shares were transferred as security for repayment and that the loan remains unpaid, despite two rescheduled payment dates. 

The High Court was told of both a trial and later retrial in the Tianjin People’s Court over the disputed debt.  In both trials, Mr Tong and Ms Chen were held liable for repayment; the second reducing the amount due on account of real estate transferred to Junyuan Technology in part payment.

In 2024, Junyuan Technology attempted multiple times to serve legal notice on Ms Cheng at her Christchurch home of its intention to have the China court judgment enforced through the New Zealand courts.

Evidence was given of Ms Cheng’s daughter being the only one to answer the door.  She refused to provide contact details for her mother, saying her mother was overseas.  

Legal service was achieved by court-approved substituted service on her daughter.

Appearing in court, Ms Cheng said her only New Zealand assets were some $12,700 in sundry bank accounts.

Evidence was given of Ms Cheng being trustee of, or having control over, two family trusts owning five Christchurch properties.

Learning that these properties might be seized, Ms Cheng arranged for discharge of a $3.8 million debt owed to her by these trusts and further arranged for her daughter and an independent nominee company take control of trust assets.

In the High Court, Justice Robinson dismissed her application to have charging orders removed from the Christchurch properties, allowing Junyuan to potentially recover the debt still owed with a forced sale.

With accrued interest also unpaid, the total due is close to double the initial ten million dollar loan.

Ms Cheng provided no concrete evidence that Junyuan has sold down the Lisi Group shares in reduction of the debt, he said.

Tianjin Junyuan Technology Development Co Ltd v. Cheng – High Court (19.01.26)

26.063

Class Action: Simons v. ASB

  

Class action does not come cheap.  Of the $135.6 million out-of-court settlement LPF Group negotiated for ASB customers claiming breaches of consumer credit disclosure rules, $28.9 million comes out for LPF’s fee plus another $3.5 million for its direct legal costs.

With some 276,000 Bank customers potentially entitled to various levels of compensation, a notional equal split would see each receiving about $375.

In 2021, ASB admitted to breaches of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, failing to make full statutory disclosures required for customers following changes to their home and personal loans.

It agreed with the Commerce Commission to pay $8.1 million compensation to affected customers.  This agreement specifically left open customer rights to sue ASB.

In June 2021, litigation funders LPF Group Ltd and CASL Management Pty Ltd set the ball rolling with a joint class action seeking compensation for ASB customers and also for ANZ Bank customers with allegations of a similar failure by ANZ to make proper disclosures.

ASB settled out of court in late 2025; this agreement requiring court approval.

ANZ refused to settle.  It is going head to head in court against the litigation funders’ claim.  

Giving High Court approval to ASB’s $135.6 million settlement, Justice Venning said the agreed settlement was in the interests of affected bank customers given three months’ extensive negotiations between the parties, the cost of going to trial, and present uncertainty as to the outcome.

Independent legal advice supported the out-of-court settlement.

ANZ Bank said all legal costs to date of $4.7 million should be charged to the ASB settlement.

ANZ said only 17,000 ANZ customers were part of the class action claim against it.

By contrast, the ASB class action involved nearly 276,000 customers and covered a wider range of disputed issues, ANZ said.

Justice Venning ruled 65 per cent of legal costs to date are to be charged against the ASB settlement.

Simons v. ASB Bank Ltd – High Court (14.01.26)

26.062

Court Costs: Far North Community Group v. Far North District

  

Established as a lobby group to hold Far North District Council to account over its establishment of heritage areas, forty-four members of Far North Community Group were ordered jointly to contribute $10,000 towards Council legal costs after failure of an ill-fated Environment Court challenge. 

Belatedly recognising the prospect of potential personal liability, the group later formed an incorporated society to progress their legal challenge.  They were still liable for costs up to the point their incorporated society was substituted as applicant in their Environment Court litigation.

Property owners from around Mangonui challenged Far North District rules seeking to preserve examples of early colonial architecture and to allow archeological digs over private property in areas considered to be of heritage status.

In the Environment Court, a ginger group challenged operation of these rules.

It did not go well.

The Environment Court was critical of filed documents as being unclear, unstructured and convoluted.   

It was suggested to the applicants that they might reconsider their proposed challenge.

The court signalled part of their application lacked merit; in other instances, they were asking for court orders the Environment Court has no power to make.

After they pressed on, it became clear the Environment Court would not rule in their favour, with the possibility of costs awarded against them.

Unlike the High Court, it is not normal practice for the Environment Court to award costs in favour of a successful litigant; costs paid by the losing side.

But costs may be awarded against Environment Court litigants who fail to follow mandated court practice; wasting court time, imposing extra costs on other litigants.

Judge Smith ordered forty-four named members of the original ginger group pay $10,000 to Far North District; just under half Council’s legal costs up to the point this group exited the litigation, replaced, as approved by the Court, with their newly registered Far North Community Group Incorporated.

An incorporated society is a legal person, separate from its members.

This incorporated society is now their vehicle for any further litigation and is itself liable for any further costs order.

Later substitution by the Far North Community Group Inc did not absolve individual members from their liability incurred prior to incorporation, Judge Smith ruled.

Far North Community Group Inc v. Far North District Council – Environment Court (12.01.26)

26.061

Guarantee: Hudson v. Hobsonville Consulting

  

Where one guarantor enjoys the whole financial benefit of a guaranteed loan, fellow guarantors should stand second in line and not be liable to initially front up with any contribution the High Court ruled, requiring Auckland property developer Brian Hudson pay first on a $593,000 guaranteed debt, ahead of his former partner and fellow guarantor.

A September 2022 refinancing of funding from Kensington Finance Limited Partnership saw a three-way guarantee of repayment made by Mr Hudson, his then partner Sarah Clarke, and their company Hobsonville Consulting Ltd.

Funds were needed to complete a property redevelopment on St Vincent Avenue in Remuera, one of Mr Hudson’s projects.

With a mortgagee sale threatened, Hobsonville Consulting paid off the $550,000 owed Kensington Finance.

Left unresolved was the question of how this liability should be split between the three guarantors.

The general rule is that liability between multiple guarantors is shared equally.

Justice Becroft adopted a principle established in Australian litigation: a guarantor who obtains the whole benefit of a loan may be required to accept the whole burden, with co-guarantors having a right to recover their otherwise equal liability out of the prime guarantor’s assets should they be called to pay.

Mr Hudson was ordered to pay fifty per cent of the guaranteed $550,000 debt, with Hobsonville Consulting agreeing it would pay the other fifty per cent.

The loan was primarily for Mr Hudson’s benefit, to complete his St Vincent Ave project.

Ms Clarke is excused payment, to the extent that the other two guarantors make full payment.

Separately, Mr Hudson argued he should pay nothing.  Transfer of his fifty per cent shareholding in Hobsonville Consulting to Ms Clarke extinguished his liability on the guarantee, he claimed.  The remaining co-guarantors assumed all liability.

There was no such agreement, Justice Becroft ruled.

Even if there were, Mr Hudson provided nothing of benefit in return for the supposed agreement.  Shares in Hobsonville Consulting were essentially worthless.

Hudson v. Hobsonville Consulting Ltd – High Court (22.12.25)

26.060

House Sale: Smallbridge v. Singh

  

After failing to find a buyer for a quick on-sale of an Auckland residential property ripe for development, Paljeet Singh was ordered to pay $753,000 damages for the owners’ loss on resale.  A claim he was refused access prior to settlement, blighting chances of quickly flipping the property, was dismissed by the High Court; no access was requested.  Potential buyers had evaporated in a falling market. 

The High Court was told of a bidding war between at least five property developers and speculators at a November 2021 auction of the Smallridge family home in Avondale.  Sitting on a 930 square metre site, the property has considerable potential for re-development.

Mr Singh’s winning bid at $1.95 million left Robert and Margaret Smallbridge ecstatic; their real estate agent surprised.

As events transpired, this sale was at peak of the market.

At Mr Singh’s request, contract terms gave him twelve months to settle his purchase with rights of access prior to settlement, allowing him to have prospective buyers view the property.

The Smallridges agreed Mr Singh could use marketing material and photos prepared for their auction sale to assist his sale efforts.

They objected to Mr Singh putting a ‘for sale’ sign back up in front of their property.

It was removed, with Mr Singh later arguing in the High Court this was one example of the Smallbridges’ failure to allow access.

One year on from the auction, Mr Singh failed to settle.

He claimed the contract was cancelled, alleging the Smallbridges were in breach of contract terms over access.

Justice Walker ruled there was no evidence of access being denied.  There were no buyers in the market requiring access at the price Mr Singh wanted.

Mr Singh’s request for access by a valuer was readily given, but no valuer turned up.

His claim one purchaser backed out because of an inability to access the property was dismissed by Justice Walker.  The deal fell over because no agreement could be reached on price.

Mr Singh had no grounds for cancellation, she ruled.

He was ordered to pay $753,000 damages for the Smallridges loss on resale after they put their property back on the market in 2023.

The Smallridges then offered to accept a lesser sum from Mr Singh in order to finalise the litigation, avoiding further stress and delay.  This offer was not taken up, the court was told.

Smallridge v. Singh – High Court (19.12.25)

26.059

Caveat: Zhao v. Wang

  

Family members were not wholly transparent about their financial affairs Associate Judge Gellert said when ruling that caveats remain over three Auckland properties.  Son, Xinlei Wang, says the properties were purchased out of his own money.  His parents say they contributed and are entitled to a part share.

This dispute over source of funds is clouded by money transfers from China to New Zealand through use of intermediaries, a tactic designed to circumvent foreign exchange controls in China.

The High Court was told family wealth is derived from construction and management of commercial properties in the Zhangzhou district, near Taiwan Strait.

Shareholding in their family company is split across family members.

In 2014, it was decided to invest company profits in New Zealand real estate.

Lease income dried up when Zhangzhou local government compulsory purchased company leases in 2018, paying some $4.6 million compensation.

In New Zealand, Xinlei is registered as the owner of real estate purchased in Auckland during 2015 and 2016.

He claims to have funded these purchases out of capital generated by Zhangzhou commercial leases he previously held in his own name.

His parents claim these leases were family company assets and that the capital is family money, not Xinlei’s alone.

In the High Court, Judge Gellert commented that details of leases Xinlei claims were his own closely match leases his parents claim belonged to their family company.

For these leases, Xinlei’s signature is the only signatory as lessor.

His parents say it is common in China for a company director to sign company documents without any notation that the document is signed on behalf of a company.

Judge Gellert ruled that the parents’ caveat remain temporarily on title to the disputed Auckland properties, blocking their son from further dealings with the land.  They are required to file court action immediately, to prove the source of funds used to purchase these properties.

The High Court was told Xinlei and his parents are also involved with litigation in China.

Zhao v. Wang – High Court (19.12.25)

26.058

Fraud: Shi v. Hebei Huaneng Industrial

  

Allegations that a $23 million judgment from a court in China was obtained by fraud led the New Zealand Court of Appeal to order a review before allowing enforcement in New Zealand.

Deming Shi has assets in New Zealand but lives in the Peoples Republic of China.

The Higher People’s Court of Hebei Province held him liable on a guarantee of debts owed a China state-owned enterprise by coal supplier Qinhuangdao Boen Trading Co Ltd.

These debts arose from the state-owned enterprise making advance payments for future coal deliveries; working capital for Boen Trading, enabling it to purchase coal stocks for later supply.

China has no reciprocal treaty with New Zealand for the enforcement of each country’s court judgments.  Enforcement in New Zealand of the Hebei court judgment first required a New Zealand court to ‘recognise’ the validity of the overseas court ruling.

In 2021, the New Zealand High Court decided the China ruling was valid and enforceable in New Zealand.  This followed a review of the manner and circumstances in which the Hebei court reached its decision.

Mr Shi appealed, claiming new evidence has come to light which shows he did not receive a fair hearing in China.

At the China hearing, the same legal counsel represented both Boen Trading as the debtor and himself as supposed guarantor.

Mr Shi claims the Hubei court was misled.

He did not guarantee payments due under a 2016 contract in dispute at the court hearing, Mr Shi says.  He did guarantee payments due under previous contracts, but this personal guarantee was not rolled over into the disputed 2016 contract, he claims.

Mr Shi says has only recently been able to get a copy of the 2016 contract.

The Court of Appeal put on hold any enforcement of the $23 million judgment.

Mr Shi’s complaint was referred back to the High Court for an inquiry into whether the Hebei court was deceived.

Shi v. Hebei Huaneng Industrial Development Company Ltd – Court of Appeal (17.12.25)

26.057

Litigation: Exceda Finance v. Huka Ridge

  

It is back to square one for financier Exceda after the High Court ruled a $4.7 million default judgment against entrepreneurs David Wigmore and Paul Bublitz be re-litigated; emailing its claim to a lawyer previously acting for one of Mr Wigmore’s companies did not amount to proper notice of Exceda’s High Court action.

Both Mr Wigmore and Mr Bublitz say lack of notice means they had no chance to defend Exceda’s claim, brought against them as guarantors of a loan to Mr Wigmore’s Huka Ridge Bre Ltd.

Each told the High Court they were not aware of the September 2024 court hearing, decided in their absence, until facing notice of bankruptcy for failing to pay the court’s $4.7 million default judgment.

Xceda Finance Ltd claimed they did have knowledge; legal papers were served with their agreement on Auckland lawyer Richard Beca, then acting for them.

In dispute was the extent of authority Mr Beca had to accept service of legal proceedings.

Mr Wigmore said authority for Mr Beca to accept service related only to legal action taken against another of his companies, Black Robin Equity Ltd.  It did not extend to legal claims against him as guarantor of loans to Huka Ridge.

Mr Bublitz told the High Court he had never given Mr Beca authority to accept service on his behalf.

Setting aside the default judgment, Associate Judge Taylor said Exceda failed to identify whether Mr Beca had authority to accept service of its claim before emailing the documents to him.

After what was an easy win by default, Exceda now has to go the long way round, restarting and proving its alleged claim against Mr Wigmore and Mr Bublitz.

Exceda said in the High Court it is not credible that Mr Beca failed to tell the two that Exceda was claiming against them.

Regardless of this, proper service of legal proceedings is a fundamental requirement, Judge Taylor ruled.

Exceda Finance Ltd v. Huka Ridge Bre Ltd – High Court (16.12.25)

26.056

Profit Margin: Knight Investments v. Hawkins Group

  

Any suggestion Auckland volume home builders are creaming it took a knock when the High Court reduced the profit margin Hawkins Homes could recover as damages after a customer defaulted, down from a claimed fifteen per cent profit margin to 7.5 per cent.

Litigation followed Hawkins Homes troubled involvement in a Clarks Beach subdivision on southern shores of Auckland’s Manukau Harbour.

Hawkins Homes settled out of court its argument over an agreed purchase of ten sections in the Clarks Beach Waterfront Estate from developer Knight Investments Ltd, controlled by Daniel Nahkle.

This left Hawkins committed to a home and land package deal on what was described as lot 114.

In early 2022, Gregory and Michelle Nefdt agreed to buy lot 114 from Hawkins for $490,000 and agreed in a separate contract to have Hawkins build a home for them on site.

The Nefdts were relocating from Thames.

The High Court was told the Nefdts later refused to settle, cancelling both the land purchase and home build contracts.

Hawkins Homes in turn defaulted on its purchase of lot 114 from Knight Investments, becoming liable for damages when Knight Investments resold at a lower price.

The Nefdts denied they were liable to pay damages to Hawkins Homes.  Misrepresentations about a time line to completion of their new home justified cancellation, they said.

The Nefdts said they made it clear from the outset that the build had to be completed by end of 2022 so they could shift in.

Justice Downs ruled there had been no misrepresentation by Hawkins Homes.

In his initial telephone inquiry to Scott Hawkins, Mr Nefdt did not emphasise that a 2022 completion would be an essential term of the build contract, Justice Downs ruled.

A follow-up email by Mr Hawkins made it clear that progress was dependent upon subdivision titles being issued to Knight Investments.

Subsequent communications by Mr Hawkins talked of ‘expected’ deadlines.

In addition, the Nefdts’ agreement for sale and purchase specifically excluded liability for delays beyond Hawkins Homes’ control.

Hawkins claimed $158,800 damages for its loss of profit on the two contracts wrongly cancelled by the Nefdts.  This loss amounted to a fifteen per cent profit margin.

Justice Downs said this figure was based on a single similar instance where a customer defaulted.

A more modest profit margin might be expected for a builder operating a volume-oriented business model, he said.

Damages were ordered at a court-imposed profit margin of 7.5 per cent.

Amount to pay was reduced by the Nefdts’ forfeited deposit.

In total, they were ordered to pay $75,245.

Knight Investments Ltd v. Hawkins Group Ltd – High Court (15.12.25)

26.054

Champerty: Ingenious Asset Mgmt v. McConnon

  

The High Court dismissed as champertous and ‘trafficking in litigation’ a scheme seeing investors buying up unsecured creditors’ rights, after they were left partly-paid in an insolvent liquidation, and then seeking to sue directors of the insolvent company. 

If successful, the ploy by Gautam Jindal’s Ingenious Asset Management Ltd could have seen unsecured creditor payouts from Global Dairy Ltd’s liquidation together with damages from its directors exceeding one hundred cents in the dollar.

Global Dairy wholesaled dairy products.  Controlled by Auckland-based Simon McConnon, it went into liquidation insolvent in March 2020.

The High Court was told liquidators PKF Corporate Recovery reached a $250,000 out of court settlement against present and past directors of Global Dairy alleging breaches of Companies Act directors’ duties.  This settlement was described as being in full and final settlement.

It was sufficient to pay unsecured creditors 48 cents in the dollar.

Two months later, Ingenious Asset sued Global Dairy directors, also alleging breaches of Companies Act directors’ duties.

Ingenious Asset said it was exercising ongoing legal rights of partly-paid unsecured creditors, having taken an assignment of their rights at the cost of one dollar.

Justice Walker ruled the assignments valid, but in context of Global Dairy’s liquidation not enforceable.

The one dollar purchases were an assignment of a ‘bare cause of action:’ being each unpaid creditor’s Companies Act right to seek compensation from directors for reckless trading; a right seldom exercised in practice since it is usually impracticable and uneconomic.

Courts generally refuse to enforce any assignment of a bare legal right on public policy grounds, as trafficking in litigation; leading to speculative litigation and potentially misuse.

Litigation is not a commodity to be bought and sold.  In legal jargon, it is champertous and illegal to buy someone else’s legal rights without first having a collateral prior interest in the dispute.

Ingenious Management had no prior trading relationship with Global Dairy to justify its interest in pursuing a claim against the company or its directors, Justice Walker ruled.

Ingenious Asset’s separate argument that the assignments gave it trust law claims against the directors also failed.  This required evidence that deposits paid in advance by Global Dairy customers should have been held in trust.

No trust relationship existed, Justice Walker ruled.

In 2023, control of Ingenious Asset was transferred from Gautam Jindal to his spouse, Dr Deepika Jindal.

Ingenious Asset Management Ltd v. McConnon – High Court (15.12.25)

26.053

Conversion: D&E Buses v. Anuj & Pallavi Family Trust

  

It began with a $65,000 loan, ending with creditor Gary Sword claiming damages of two million dollars for supposed conversion of furniture at an Auckland motel which the High Court later ruled he had no rights over.  Stuck in the middle was motel operator Anuj Gupta, not involved with the original $65,000 loan and needing police assistance to evict Mr Sword from his motel unit.

Ten years after the event, the High Court was asked to unravel events which took place in 2015.

The Newmarket motel sits on land leased from Dilworth Trust, across the road from Dilworth School, itself funded from lease revenue.

In 2014, the then motel lessee was kicked off site for non-payment of lease rentals.

As is common, sundry chattels on site were abandoned and left behind.

A new lease was taken up by Neville Bright’s Newmarket International Motor Inn Ltd.  He guaranteed lease payments.

At this time, Mr Sword was a long-term resident at the motel.

The High Court was told Mr Sword and his company D&E Buses Ltd are in the business of making loans to ‘companies and individuals in difficult circumstances.’

Mr Bright proved to be one of those individuals.  His Newmarket Inn struggled to keep up with lease payments to Dilworth Trust.

He borrowed from Mr Sword, who drew up a loan agreement stating that Mr Bright gave security over all chattels at Newmarket Inn in return for a short-term $65,000 loan.

Overlooked was the fact that Mr Bright did not own the chattels. Newmarket Inn might, and that was an issue later disputed.  This was supposedly tidied up two months later, to Mr Sword’s satisfaction, with extra documentation signed by Newmarket Inn.

Meanwhile, Dilworth Trust was looking to remove Newmarket Inn as lessee for failing to pay rent.  At the same time, Mr Sword was negotiating with Dilworth, unsuccessfully, to take over as new lessee.

Dilworth Trust seized the initiative, having Mr Gupta’s family trust take possession as the new lessee running the motel.

For Mr Gupta, Mr Sword and his claim to have security over motel chattels proved to be long-running problem.

Mr Gupta’s family trust set about replacing much of the motel chattels: fridges, television sets, bedding and some furniture.

Mr Sword was trespassed and evicted from his motel unit, the Tenancy Tribunal later ruling he was not a tenant.

The High Court was told Mr Gupta offered to retain and hand over any chattels Mr Sword could prove rights to.

Looking at terms of the Dilworth Trust lease, Justice Campbell later ruled Newmarket Inn, and by extension Mr Sword as supposed secured creditor, did not own any of the chattels left behind after Newmarket Inn’s lease was cancelled.

Mr Sword’s claim to damages for conversion was dismissed.

At best, Mr Sword had rights to a number of leased fridges having produced a receipt showing he had purchased the fridges from a company hiring them to Newmarket Inn.

The High Court was told these fridges had been held in storage next to the motel restaurant after being replaced by Mr Gupta.

Mr Sword delayed making arrangements to uplift these chattels, Justice Campbell said.

Instead, he left them on site for months, choosing instead to bill Mr Gupta for supposed use of the fridges; invoices never paid.  He later sued for conversion.

No damages were payable for conversion.  Mr Sword chose not to take back the fridges promptly, Justice Campbell ruled.

D&E Buses Ltd v. Anuj & Pallavi Family Trust – High Court (15.12.25)

26.052

Partnership: re Estate Peter Webb

  

Partnership law has business partnerships end automatically on death of any one partner, unless agreed otherwise, a rule that made a nonsense of the late Peter Webb’s will.  The High Court rewrote his will, achieving his intended plan, allowing both his widow and extended family to inherit partnership assets.

Mr Webb farmed in partnership with his two brothers on a property at Hikurangi in Northland, as Webb Brothers Partnership.

His will, signed two months prior to his death, supposedly intended that his continuing share of annual farm income go to his spouse Nazreem and that she later receive one-quarter of his assets, the balance going to their nieces and nephews.

One major legal complication arose on his death.

There was no continuing partnership.  Terms of his will were predicated on the assumption that the farming partnership would continue, with his estate slotting in as replacement partner on his death.

In the case of Webb Brothers Partnership, this was a legal impossibility.  Their partnership dissolved automatically on his death in March 2023.

Partnership Law Act states that death of one partner brings a business partnership to an end; a rule necessary because partnership law holds each and every partner fully liable for all partnership debts.

Partners may agree otherwise, but this must be spelt out in their partnership agreement.

Written terms of Webb Brothers Partnership explicitly stated their partnership ended on death of any of the three brothers.    

In the High Court, Justice Isac was told the will as signed did not achieve Mr Webb’s intentions.

Using Wills Act powers, the will was corrected by Justice Isac to ensure both Mr Webb’s widow and their nieces and nephews inherit.

Without this correction, a three-quarter share of Mr Webb’s assets would go to his brothers, rather than his nieces and nephews as intended.

The court was told all three brothers, each aged in their eighties, died within three months of each other; Peter being the first.

re Estate of Peter Webb – High Court (15.12.25)

26.051

Family Trust: Terry v. Hadwin

  

Family trust changes making it mandatory for assets in two Manawatu farming trusts to be divided equally between four adult children on death of their widowed mother were given Trusts Act ‘blessing’ by the High Court.  Trustees took this action to block acrimonious litigation following the 2017 death of patriarch Dennis Terry.

Two family trusts established three decades ago in the names of the now deceased Dennis Terry and now widowed Christine Terry each own one of two farms near Palmerston North.  One is farmed by son Nigel; the other by son Simon.

Their siblings are Lynda and Paula.

The High Court was told of multiple disputes between family members after Dennis’ death about the distribution of assets held by his estate and assets held by the two family trusts.

Writs flew, with Family Protection Act and Law Reform (Testamentary Promises) Act claims filed.  Primary complaint is the level of compensation Lynda and Paula might receive after ownership of the two farms later passes from the family trusts to their brothers.

Independent trustees were appointed, taking control of trust assets.

They arranged an August 2025 mediation, attempting to resolve family differences.  All four children participated; daughter Paula by Zoom from her New York home.

Agreement was reached between three of the children and their mother, but not Paula.

Put to the High Court for approval was a scheme which would see all farming assets come back under direct ownership of their respective family trusts, with Nigel and Simon given rights of first refusal to buy back ‘their’ farm at market price on death of their mother.

This does not preclude them from leasing each of the farm properties in the interim.

When trust assets are cashed up on their mother’s death, net proceeds are to be split equally between all four siblings.

This proposal required removal from each trust deed an existing trustees’ discretionary power to allocate trust assets between beneficiaries, otherwise trustees might later depart from the equal-shares mediation agreement.

In the High Court, Justice Gendall approved the proposed changes.  These changes remove ongoing litigation costs and reduce further cost and complexity in trust operations, he said.

The changes are also binding on Paula as beneficiary, despite her not agreeing to terms of the mediation agreement.

Terms are fair to Paula, Justice Gendall said.  She is expected to get a more substantial payout on death of their mother than if current disputes drift on.

Bringing all farming assets back under complete control of current trustees saw Nigel’s current one quarter share in one farm bought back for $1.05 million and Simon’s interest in the second taken back at a price of $250,000.

It was further agreed that their mother, in her lifetime, would not make annual gifts out of trust assets to her children and grandchildren exceeding $20,000 each.

Terry v. Hadwin – High Court (15.12.25)

26.055

Relationship Property: 'Cooper' v. 'Smithie'

  

It was at times a tempestuous relationship.  He served a four year prison term for a serious criminal offence.  At one point, she had a protection order taken out against him.  The High Court ruled he was entitled to a relationship property half share of their home that she paid for, overturning a Family Court ruling awarding him a fifteen per cent share only.

Both names were anonymised in the publicly released court judgment.

The High Court was told they started dating in late 2001.  She kept in contact whilst he was in prison.

In 2005, she purchased a residential property in Auckland suburb Panmure with $150,000 cash and a $130,000 bank loan.

The High Court was told that the two came to live together full-time from early 2009.  Three children were born over the next five years.

When their relationship ended in 2022, she said it would be ‘repugnant to justice’ if her former partner were to receive half the value of her Panmure home under the Property (Relationships) Act.

The Family Court agreed, highlighting his lack of financial contribution to their relationship, his history of periodic violence and her clear expressions from the outset of their relationship that the Panmure house was hers alone.  They lived apart for various periods during their relationship.  They had always kept their finances separate.

In the High Court, Justice Johnstone ruled a wider view must be taken.

The fact only one spouse funded purchase of a family home does not mean it ‘is repugnant to justice’ to have this asset split equally on separation, he said.

The Family Court did not place sufficient weight on shared responsibility for their children, he said.  Whilst she claimed to be the primary caregiver, both worked in paid employment outside the home and both were actively involved in childcare.      

His role in caregiving was recognised with Family Court orders subsequent to separation having him responsible for full-time care of two of their children.

While their relationship was punctuated by instances of physical violence, ‘no fault’ rules underpinning the Property (Relationships) Act meant misconduct was not relevant to questions of relationship property division, Justice Johnstone said.

As their relationship deteriorated, each partners’ disinclination to provide the other with love, companionship, loyalty and support became mutual, he said.

‘Cooper’ v. ‘Smithie’ – High Court (15.12.25)

26.049