Lease: Glenthorne Station v. Canterbury University

  

High country runholders holding leases with rentals assessed under the Public Bodies Leases Act now diversifying into homestays and trekking face increased rent assessments following a landmark High Court case ruling that ‘amenity values’ are relevant in fixing annual rents.

Intangible benefits to land such as topography, scenic views and the pleasures of solitude are all considered amenity values.

This ruling followed a rent dispute running since 2009 between Canterbury University and banker John Shrimpton over rent renewals for Lake Coleridge’s Glenthorne Station.

Nearly one third of the 25,000 hectare station is held on a perpetually renewable lease from Canterbury University, part of the University’s nineteenth century endowment of surplus land then unwanted by colonial settlers. 

The High Court confirmed an arbitration award fixing annual rent for the disputed lease at $32,000 running for eleven years from 2009.

A further rent review was required in 2020.

Glenthorne Station claimed rentals should be assessed as if a statutory trust created by 1876 colonial legislation should apply, resulting in annual rentals some one-quarter less than the arbitrators’ assessment.

Justice Mander ruled carry-over rules from this 1876 legislation applied only to runholders holding leases at that time.  Subsequent purchasers, such as Mr Shrimpton, do not benefit from this concession.

Annual rents are to be fixed using rules in the Public Bodies Leases Act, he ruled.  This includes an assessment of ‘amenity values’ attaching to the land.

Glenthorne Station Ltd v. Canterbury University – High Court (13.08.26)

26.229

Franchise: Green Acres v. Singh

  

Ordered to pay ongoing Green Acres franchise fees for their remaining twenty year franchise term, franchisees Palwinder Singh and Harmandip Singh cancelled their Wellington commercial cleaning franchises without justification after one year.

The High Court was told the two signed up in 2024, guaranteeing performance of two Green Acres franchises taken out in names of their separate companies.

They claimed Green Acres failed to refer supposedly promised ongoing work.

Green Acres Franchise Group Ltd provides business platforms for small business operations.  Franchisees commit to paying royalty fees and brand levies.

Each cancelled their respective company’s franchise agreement after complaining there was no justification for ongoing fees when business turnover did not reach guaranteed levels of some $1500 per week. 

Associate Judge Lester ruled Green Acres was under no obligation to provide guaranteed work from day one.  It was up to both Green Acres as franchisor and the Singhs as franchisees to source work.

Their agreements required Green Acres to provide compensation after two years if turnover had not reached guaranteed levels by that date.

This guarantee did not apply on cancellation within these two years, he said.   

The Singhs two companies’ supposed cancellations were invalid, amounting to a wrongful repudiation of their franchise contracts, Judge Lester ruled.

As guarantors, they were liable.

Palwinder Singh was ordered to pay some $97,000: the present day value of fees due for the balance of his twenty year franchise contract.  Ongoing payments would have been $187.50 for weekly royalties, $25 monthly as brand levies.

Harmand Singh was ordered to pay $62,800 for ongoing unpaid royalties, based on contracted royalties of $125 per week.

Green Acres claim against Harmand Singh for unpaid brand levies requires further evidence, Judge Lester said.

For Harmand Singh’s business, brand levies are calculated as a percentage of future gross monthly sales; an impossible calculation with business operations now terminated.

Green Acres Franchise Group Ltd v. Singh – High Court (13.08.26)

26.228

Defamation: Bakshi v. Gill

  

No name was mentioned, but a Tik Tok video voiced in Punjabi was sufficient to identify Wellington businessman Amandeep Bakshi awarded $150,000 damages after a former employee assisted in online publication of defamatory comments variously accusing Mr Bakshi of bribery, exploiting employees, sexual misconduct and threatening to kill.   

Harnoor Gill was ordered to pay $100,000 damages for posting a Tik Tok video she scripted and fronted; former employee Paras Kamboj $50,000 damages for providing at least some of the defamatory information provided to Ms Gill and then reposting her video to his Instagram account.

Neither appeared in court to defend Mr Bakshi’s claim.

Mr Bakshi owns Nirmal 0013 Ltd, operating bottle stores and hospitality businesses across Wellington.

Mr Kamboj previously worked for Nirmal, his employment terminated about three weeks before Ms Gill’s ten minute Tik Tok video was posted in July 2025.

Her video was deleted three months later; receiving over 11,000 views and about 200 shares.  

Accusations in this video were aimed at an ‘employer’ based in ‘Wellington’ who ‘owns many shops – kebab shops and liquor stores too.’

Mr Bakshi told the High Court both he and his family had been frequently questioned about the accusations, with customers and friends assuming the video referred to him.

These accusations had affected his business and personal reputation, he said.

Justice Dunningham ruled wording in the video did identify Mr Bakshi, even though he was not mentioned by name.

Statements made were clearly defamatory, she said.

Publication was limited to the Indian community with the video voiced in Punjabi, but this is a community that is important to Mr Bakshi and his standing within it, she said.

Bakshi v. Gill – High Court (7.08.26)

26.227

Family Trust: Nahkle v. Karaka Estate Ltd

  

An internecine battle within Auckland’s Nahkle family saw the High Court order two family trustee companies into liquidation to protect trust assets at a time when trust operations are insolvent with son Daniel wanting to retain control, propping up trust activities with further lines of credit.

In advance of the liquidation applications, Daniel bought out Westpac’s $7.7 million secured debt over Nakhle Group assets.  He was subsequently blocked from seizing control of trust assets by appointing a receiver.

The full extent of Nahkle family trust assets was not disclosed.

Nahkle Group’s website claims interests in commercial and residential property, education, farming and throughbred breeding.

The High Court heard specialist accounting evidence that two separate Nahkle trust entities are insolvent: Bryerly Park Ltd having accumulated losses of $7.6 million and negative cashflows; Karaka Estate Ltd with losses of $0.77 million in the last four years and again negative cash flows.

Neither is able to pay its debts as they fall due.

Each is being propped up with funding provided by Daniel.

Evidence was given of family allegations that Daniel has misappropriated at least $40 million from the Nahkle Group.  He claims that a decade-old family agreement entitles him to Group assets exceeding $60 million.

Matriarch Henriette Nahkle asked the High Court to put both corporate trustees into liquidation.

She and son Daniel are both directors.

Justice Powell ruled liquidation was necessary.

Family members are deadlocked.

Their dispute will likely take years to unravel, he indicated.

Liquidation ensures trust assets are now controlled by an independent person who can preserve these assets, acting in the interests of all trust creditors and beneficiaries, he said.

Justice Powell dismissed Daniel’s request for receivership instead.

This would leave Daniel in sole control, with no surety of Daniel continuing to provide funding and the possibility of the trusts’ net asset positions deteriorating further, he said.

Nahkle v. Karaka Estate Ltd & Nahkle v. Byerley Park Ltd – High Court (7.08.26)

26.226

Asset Forfeiture: Commissioner of Police v. Zhao

  

With their Christchurch home held in name of a family trust, High Court approved a negotiated proceeds of crime settlement allowing thirty per cent of net proceeds from a forced sale be paid to spouse of convicted dealer Xu Zhao under strict conditions; Zhao to have no access to these funds.

Spouse Xiaoxin Chen has no direct ownership rights over their family home, occupied by family as trust beneficiaries.

Her cash payout was allowed on hardship grounds.  Ms Chen has responsibility for two young children.  She lacks local family support.

Ms Chen was not charged with any offences related to her husband’s synthetic cannabis dealing.

The High Court was told Zhao was arrested on the street together with a fellow dealer, maintaining a 9am to 9pm delivery service.

He pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including participation in an organised criminal group.

Forfeiture of $555,000 as proceeds of crime was agreed.

Proceeds from cash seized, Zhao’s bank balance and sale of a vehicle seized under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act were insufficient to pay the full $555,000.

A court-ordered sale of their trust-owned family home followed.

It was acknowledged that a hardship application by Ms Chen would likely succeed.

She is to receive thirty per cent of net proceeds from sale of the family home, payment into a bank account she alone controls.

Zhao personally is liable for any shortfall should seventy per cent of net sale proceeds be insufficient to clear the required $555,000.

Commissioner of Police v. Zhao – High Court (7.08.26)

26.225

Estate: re Pullar

  

Having received funds totalling $2.5 million by survivorship on assets she owned jointly with her late husband Alan Given following his 2025 death, Karen Given then selflessly surrendered the life interest given her by his will so that all estate assets could pass immediately to Alan’s six grandchildren, born to children of his first marriage.   

The High Court was told widow Karen is aged in her seventies, in good health, and there is every possibility of a lengthy period to her death before inheritances can then vest in residuary beneficiaries of Alan’s estate.

High Court Trusts Act approval to this re-arrangement was required; on behalf of three grandchildren not of full legal age.

Evidence was given that Karen’s life interest in her late husband’s estate was valued at some $350,000; being a discounted cash flow calculation of the expected income stream she would be entitled to receive from estate capital over her actuarially-assessed life expectancy.  

The court was told she agreed to surrender this life interest in return for payment of $150,000 and her resignation as estate trustee.

Approving this family arrangement, Justice Osborne said it is plainly sensible and in the interest of all family members.

Dissolving her life interest allows an immediate final distribution of estate assets, with the added financial advantage of Alan’s estate no longer required to prepare financial and tax reports each year .

Details of his estate were not disclosed.

re Pullar – High Court (6.08.26)

26.223

Marketing: Commerce Commission v. Brand Developers

  

Marketing tactics by online trader and prolific television advertiser Brand Developers being described by Commerce Commission as amongst ‘the worst of its kind’ saw the company now further fined $1.1 million for multiple offences leaving it with a Fair Trading Act rap sheet matching that of a recidivist offender: its latest conviction added to prior convictions in 2015 and 2021 plus a Commerce Commission warning in 2010 and three subsequent letters demanding improvements to its marketing techniques.

Controlled by Auckland-based Paul Meier, Brand Developers operates an online direct marketing service coupled with direct response television infomercials utilising fast-talking, high pressure ads for consumer products.

Most recently, Commerce Commission took exception to company treatment of dissatisfied customers.

The District Court was told of company policy to manipulate customer satisfaction reviews on its website by deleting low-rating reviews, replaced by staff-generated reviews extolling the value of goods sold.  Fictitious reviews were posted from multiple email addresses and different servers to disguise the fact reviews were not independent of the company.  In some cases, payment was made to generate false reviews.

These false and misleading endorsements of Brand Developer products were in breach of the Fair Trading Act, Judge Sellars ruled.

Brand Developers was also convicted of misleading warranty claims.

When customers belatedly complained about faulty products, employees declined refunds as too late, reading from a company script stating Brand Developers’ promises of a ‘risk-free trial’ and ‘30-day money back guarantee’ overrode any Consumer Guarantees Act warranties. 

This tactic was designed to wrongly exclude customers otherwise entitled to a refund if they claimed outside Brand Developers thirty-day period, Judge Sellars said.

Evidence was given of seven customers who challenged Brand Developers’ policy, getting refunds outside the thirty-day period only after considerable time, frustration and anger.

Brand Developers told the court it intended to pay $1000 reparation immediately to each of these customers.

Brand Developers was also convicted on Fair Trading Act charges of false and misleading use of ‘free’ and ‘bonus’ wording in advertising sale of some 5000 air fryers over a nearly three-year period.

The supposedly free accessory pack supplied with each air fryer in fact came with all units as a matter of course and could not be readily sold separately.

The court was told Brand Developers was warned back in 2010 that regular product advertising of ‘buy one, get one free’ raised the presumption that the deal continually on offer was in fact two items delivered for the stated price: nothing was ‘free.’        

In fining Brand Developers $1.1 million, Judge Sellars took into account that company turnover has declined recently: $48.2 million revenue from New Zealand sales in the 2020 year; $14.6 million for the 2026 year.

Commerce Commission v. Brand Developers Ltd – District Court (6.08.26)

26.222

Land Purchase: Maraposa Ltd v. Wang

  

The High Court held Lei Wang to her purchase of an Auckland property over claims to be victim of foul play by business acquaintance Yunhao Lu whom she claims is the true purchaser; with Lu having abruptly put his company into liquidation attempting to escape liability, she alleges.

Ms Wang signed up to buy an undeveloped Pukekohe section on Stockmans Lane for $524,000 from Maraposa Ltd, a company controlled by Auckland property developer Andrew Fawcet.

Legal documentation named the purchaser as Ms Wang’s company GWT NZ Ltd or such other purchaser as agreed by Maraposa.   

Maraposa agreed to substitution of Mr Lu’s LXY Investment Ltd as purchaser.

End result saw LXY Investment as nominated purchaser, with both Ms Wang and Mr Lu guaranteeing performance.

The High Court was told Maraposa chose to sue Ms Wang after LXY Investments failed to front with cash in July 2024 on settlement.

Mr Wang claimed in the High Court she was no more than an intermediary buying for Mr Lu’s LXY Investment Ltd.

Maraposa did not put Stockmans Lane back on the market.  It got a High Court order forcing Ms Wang as guarantor to complete her company’s initial purchase.

One year later, Ms Wang was in court asking enforcement be suspended.

There would be a ‘substantial miscarriage of justice’ if the court order were enforced, she claimed.

She claims Mr Lu put his company LXY Investments into liquidation; wrongly certifying at the time that LXY Investments had no outstanding liabilities, she alleges.

Companies Office records show LXY Investments was removed from the register on administrative grounds, for failing to file annual returns. 

Ms Wang has applied to have LXY Investments restored to the Companies Office register.

She told the High Court Maraposa should instead be chasing LXY Investments and Mr Lu.

Fearing bankruptcy, Ms Wang says she does not have sufficient funds to pay for the Stockmans Lane purchase and also to sue Mr Lu.

Ms Wang should have raised her cross-claim against Mr Lu and his company LXY Investments at the time she was sued by Maraposa, Associate Judge Malarao said.

Maraposa was entitled to decide which of its potential multiple defendants it would pursue for the failed purchase.

Maraposa Ltd v. Wang – High Court (6.08.26)

26.224

Injurious Falsehood: Rascals International v. Taylor

  

Zuru escaped by a whisker after being sued for $1.18 million by owners of rival nappy brand Treasures: a Fair Trading claim filed one month out of time meant no damages were awarded despite Zuru’s Nick Mowbray making multiple false statements to retailer Woolworths intended to keep Treasures off its shelves; an injurious falsehood claim failed because while Mr Mowbray did intend to harm Treasures, he did not do so maliciously, mistakenly thinking he was correct in the damaging statements he made.

This commercial dispute was over nappies: a Zuru subsidiary produces the Rascals brand; Auckland-based JJK Group Ltd the Treasures brand.  Both products are manufactured in China.

Zuru alleged former director Grant Taylor provided proprietary commercial information to JJK Group, enabling JJK to revive the Treasures brand after it bought the product line from a former owner.

The High Court dismissed Zuru’s claim that JJK Group improperly benefitted from Mr Taylor’s assistance.

In return, JJK Group sued Zuru, alleging Nick Mowbray’s concerted campaign to keep rival Treasures out of the market was anti-competitive.

Evidence was given of Nick Mowbray contacting senior staff at Countdown, now trading as Woolworths, within days of learning that Countdown had ordered new stock from JJK Group.

In a May 2021 chatty email to Countdown’s general manager introduced in the first line as a ‘heads up,’ he then proceeded to describe JJK Group as acting in a ‘completely underhanded and illegal’ way with what Mr Mowbray claimed to be clear breaches of Rascal’s intellectual property rights.

Follow-up emails to Countdown included what he described as further evidence of illegal activity, coupled with preliminary negotiations to instead have Zuru’s nappy products stocked by Countdown.  

In the High Court, Justice Gardiner ruled there were multiple instances where Mr Mowbray deceived Countdown about the true commercial position: Mr Taylor was not in breach of a restraint of trade agreement made on his departure from Zuru as claimed (Mr Taylor’s general advice given to JJK Group was not covered by wording of the restraint); Mr Taylor had not disclosed any intellectual property rights to JJK Group (there is no copyright or patent attached to nappies in general or to Rascals product in particular); and JJK Group had not contacted Zuru’s China manufacturer as alleged (JJK representatives had been in touch with a former Rascals manufacturer in China). 

These false statements were in breach of the Fair Trading Act, causing Countdown to cancel its JJK Group supply contract within days of making a first purchase order for JJK’s product, Justice Gardiner ruled.

After receiving Nick Mowbray’s emails, Countdown was concerned that if the allegations proved true, it would be left with one million dollars of Treasure nappies on its shelves that it could not sell.

Countdown’s terms of trade with JJK Group were renegotiated, shifting the commercial risk on to JJK Group.  This resulted in JJK Group incurring increased transport and warehousing costs, totalling $1.18 million JJK claimed.

Countdown subsequently reinstated its original terms of trade with JJK Group, the High Court was told.

Whilst having a valid Fair Trading Act claim, JJK Group filed its claim too late, Justice Gardiner ruled.

JJK Group filed one month outside a three year time limit.

No damages were awarded.

Separately, JJK Group sued Zuru alleging injurious falsehood; an action in tort requiring proof of false statements published maliciously, causing financial loss.

Nick Mowbray’s statements to Countdown were in part untrue and misleading and were made with the intention of harming JJK Group’s business, Justice Gardiner said.

But he seemed genuinely convinced that Mr Taylor was involved in JJK’s business in breach of the restraint of trade, she said.

A lack of malice meant JJR Group’s claim of injurious falsehood failed.

Rascals International Ltd v. Taylor – High Court (5.08.26)

26.221

Director Duties: Rascals International v. JJK Group

  

Zuru’s $20.5 million dollar legal action against JJK Group was a claim to take ownership of potential profits in a business purchased by JJK that Zuru had already decided it had no interest in and would not buy, the High Court stated.

Zuru’s damages claim failed; a claim criticised by upstart competitor JJK as simply a ploy to gain market dominance in retail sales of disposable nappies.

Zuru sells nappies under the Rascal brand.

The nearly month-long court hearing centred on allegations that former Zuru director Grant Taylor disclosed confidential Zuru information to a consortium of Auckland businessman allowing them to snatch competing Treasures nappy product from under Zuru’s nose.

Zuru alleged JJK Group benefitted from supposed wrongdoing by a Zuru director and must hand over that benefit to Zuru.

Justice Gardiner ruled most of the information Mr Taylor provided to his acquaintance Jarrod Armitage prior to his purchase of Treasures was no more than generic market and product information.

In August 2020, JJK Group Ltd was incorporated, pooling the funds and expertise of Mr Armitage, businessman James Collie and professional basketball player Kirk Penney, to purchase then then Treasures Kawarau business owned by Asaleo Care.

The High Court was told Mr Taylor and Mr Armitage were near neighbours in the Auckland suburb of Coatesville when Mr Armitage began talking about buying Treasure’s nappy business during their joint covid-19 lockdown walks.

Mr Armitage thought he was simply getting general industry advice from a friend.

There was no evidence of Mr Armitage being aware that Mr Taylor at this point was still ‘on the books’ as a Zuru director, while his involvement with Zuru was slowly wound down.

Mr Taylor had done well from his involvement with the Rascal nappy brand, selling his part interest in the business to fellow shareholders, the Mowbray family, for $30 million.     

Both he and Mr Armitage were aware Treasure’s New Zealand operation was up for sale; manufacturer Asaleo Care unable to compete with cheaper imports.

The High Court was told Zuru made an indicative offer for the business in February 2020 at two million dollars, later going no further than offering $200,000 to buy Treasure’s trade-marked brand only.

Asaleo did not respond, instead selling its business in August 2020 for $300,000 to JJK Group Ltd.

With continued input from Mr Taylor, JJK Group established manufacturing operations in China.

Zuru sued after learning of JJK Group’s first New Zealand sale of Treasure nappies, alleging JJK Group took advantage of confidential Zuru information provided by Mr Taylor to snatch the Treasure product line from it.

The High Court was told Countdown, now trading as Woolworths, placed its first order for JJK Group’s China-manufactured Treasure product mid-May 2021.  Three days later, Nick Mowbray leaned on Countdown to cancel the order, threatening legal action.

Mr Taylor settled out of court Zuru’s claim that he disclosed confidential Zuru information.

Following Zuru’s subsequent claim against JJK Group, Justice Gardiner ruled most of the information Mr Taylor provided to JJK about re-invigorating the Treasure nappy brand was general industry information about sourcing product and appropriate business structures when manufacturing off-shore; all information in the public domain.

Much of the information he provided about Rascal’s business success was a matter of public record, publicised by the Mowbray family itself in media interviews and public presentations.

There is no legal liability on a former director’s disclosure of trivial, widely-known, industry information.  Potential liability does follow disclosure of corporate inside non-public information.

Mr Taylor did not discuss Zuru’s pricing or margins with JJK Group, the court was told.

There is no evidence that he provided JJK Group with technical specifications for Rascal’s current product, Justice Gardiner said.

JJK Group could not be held liable for Mr Taylor’s indiscretion in disclosing some information that was confidential to Zuru, Justice Gardiner ruled.

Mr Taylor personally did not benefit financially from any information he provided to JJK, be it confidential or not.  He was not paid for his advice to JJK.  He did not have any financial interest in JJK Group.

Since Mr Taylor made no profit from his involvement with JJK Group, JJK could not be held liable for damages as ‘dishonestly assisting’ any failure by him to keep information about Zuru’s Rascal product line confidential, Justice Gardiner ruled.

Rascals International Ltd v. JJK Group Ltd – High Court (5.08.26)

26.220

Bankrupt: BNZ v. Kerr

  

A case of international arbitrage.  Former high flying businessman George Kerr, now bankrupt in both England and New Zealand, unsuccessfully attempted to have his New Zealand bankruptcy put on hold while his England bankruptcy plays out.

Insolvency law in New Zealand has its origins in English bankruptcy law, but the two have now diverged with differing rules potentially resulting in differing outcomes.

Mr Kerr told the High Court there could be multiple problems should both his England and New Zealand bankruptcies run in parallel, particularly questions over control of assets and allocation of liabilities.

In England, he was bankrupted in July 2026 on an unpaid business debt of some US$400,000.

Ten days later in New Zealand, he was bankrupted on a $88.3 million debt owed Bank of New Zealand.

Now aged sixty, he has had a colourful business career with more than a decade of New Zealand litigation behind him, primarily disputes relating to operation of Pyne Holdings and his Torchlight Fund.

Most recently, his business operations have been run out of Guernsey, a crown dependency technically not part of the United Kingdom.

Refusing to put Mr Kerr’s New Zealand bankruptcy on hold, Associate Judge Malarao said both New Zealand and England have in place similar rules to deal with concurrent bankruptcies; rules based on a 1997 model law proposed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, setting a framework to deal with any legal complications in concurrent bankruptcies of having assets and liabilities extending beyond national boundaries.

Bank of New Zealand v. Kerr – High Court (5.08.26)

26.219

Restraint of Trade: Mirabito v. Waterman

  

While Kevin Waterman denies bad-mouthing purchasers of his Kerikeri dairy shed maintenance business beyond jokingly calling them ‘dumb Aucklanders’ and equally denies going behind their backs in breach of a restraint of trade on sale of his business by offering to continue working for former customers with under the table payments in cash, Justice MacGillivray issued a strongly-worded High Court injunction reinforcing the restraint of trade pending any further court hearing.      

The court was told Lauren Moribito paid $585,000 in 2025 to purchase assets of Mr Waterman’s business: Northern Dairy Specialists Ltd.

Northern Dairy installed and maintained dairy sheds.

Sale price included $362,000 paid for goodwill; payment for anticipated future revenue expected for ongoing work coming from Mr Waterman’s existing Northern Dairy customers.

As is the norm, the sale agreement contains a restraint of trade clause.  Mr Waterman promised for the next five years not to compete against Ms Moribito’s business in areas of North Auckland, north of Kawakawa.

Ms Moribito alleged in the High Court that Mr Waterman instead set out to undermine her new business from the outset.

A Northern Dairy staffmember, now working for Ms Moribito, reported hearing Mr Waterman tell his former customers that Ms Moribito and her spouse were dumb Aucklanders, useless, incompetent and destined to fail. 

Various witnesses said they had seen Mr Waterman giving former customers his personal mobile number, telling them that he was available for work with payments to be in cash and the Moribitos not told.

Mr Waterman denied all these allegations.

Comments about the Moribitos’ abilities were made as a joke, he said.

He passed on his personal mobile number just to keep in touch with customers he considered personal friends, he said.

He denied doing any under the table jobs for cash since selling in 2025.

Justice MacGillivray ruled there was sufficient evidence to justify issuing an injunction, reinforcing terms of the restraint of trade, pending a full court hearing into whether Mr Waterman had in fact breached the restraint of trade he signed.

Mirabito v. Waterman – High Court (4.08.26)

26.217

Asset Forfeiture: Commssioner of Police v. Pritchard

  

Having their family home registered in the sole name of his partner Angelina Singh did not stop Police claiming a half share in the net equity of Martin Pritchard’s Auckland home, seized as proceeds of crime after his conviction for drug offences.

Pritchard was convicted and sentenced in 2024 to twelve years six months imprisonment for methamphetamine importation.

His partner Ms Singh did not face any related criminal charges.

Police seized cash and motor vehicles in Pritchard’s possession, allegedly proceeds of crime.

The High Court was told Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act negotiations with Police saw Pritchard agree assets to the value of $558,500 would be surrendered as a profit forfeiture order.

Cash and motor vehicles already seized did not cover this amount.

Police said his family home on Waituarua Drive in Takanini was liable to forfeiture as ‘tainted property.’  Cash generated from illegal activity was used in part to pay down a mortgage over the house, Police allege.  

While the family home is registered in name of Ms Singh alone, it is relationship property with Pritchard entitled to a relationship property half share.

As part of a court-approved proceeds of crime settlement, Pritchard was given time to raise further finance, potentially on security of Waituarua Drive, up to the value of his relationship property interest, to pay the balance of the agreed $558,500 profit forfeiture order.

Failure to do so may lead to a forced sale of Waituarua Drive.

Commissioner of Police v. Pritchard – High Court (4.08.26)

26.216

Building Consent: Complete Shelf Co No.8 Ltd v. Chrictchurch City

  

It is a protracted legal game of cat and mouse.  Christchurch property developer Wolfbrook Residential claims Christchurch City must cover losses on a planned multi-storey development after errors by Wolfbrook’s own consultants led to council approval of a non-compliant building consent.  After losing a preliminary round in the High Court, Wolfbrook put into liquidation its subsidiary nominated for the projected build; by mistake, it says.

Associate Judge Lester ordered Wolfbrook pay $162,400 into court within three weeks to cover Christchurch City’s possible trial costs if it wants to proceed further.

This ruling negates Wolfbrook’s otherwise tactical advantage of pursuing litigation for its benefit in the name of a subsidiary, now in liquidation, whilst insulating itself from liability for costs if losing.

The High Court was told existing proposals for a sixty unit residential block on Lincoln Road in Christchurch were picked up by Wolfbrook subsidiary Complete Shelf Company No.8 Ltd in 2022. 

Architects acting for Complete Shelf exchanged emails with Christchurch City over balcony design changes necessary to achieve building code compliance.

Six weeks after building consent was granted, Christchurch City realised required changes to Wolfbrook’s application had not been made.

Complete Shelf alleges negligence by Christchurch City, claiming council staff should have picked up the error.

Complete Shelf is claiming damages for what it says are increased costs: management time, further design work and holding costs for project delays.

In a May 2025 High Court fast track summary judgment ruling, Associate Judge Lester ruled there are too many unknowns.  A full court hearing is needed to determine if there was any liability, and if so, how it should be spread between council, Complete Shelf and its consultants.

He questioned why Complete Shelf claimed this issue has put its whole project on hold.

Its code compliance dispute concerned balconies.  That should not delay ground-level preliminary site works, he suggested.

Just over one year later, Christchurch Council was in court demanding Complete Shelf pay money into court as security should the dispute come to a full hearing and Complete Shelf lose.

Wolfbrook as shareholder put Complete Shelf into liquidation in early 2026, council told the court.

Council potentially faces substantial legal costs defending Complete Shelf’s claim, and Complete Shelf had no means to pay if it loses, council alleges.  

Complete Shelf claimed it has a litigation funder willing to cover all legal costs.

Under questioning from Judge Lester, Complete Shelf eventually disclosed that its parent company Wolfbrook Residential is its litigation funder.

Judge Lester questioned the legality of such an arrangement; any damages recovered would be for the sole benefit of the supposed litigation funder: Wolfbrook.

He ruled Complete Shelf cannot progress its claim against Christchurch City unless it first pays into court council’s potential legal costs.

Council should not carry the risk of an unrecoverable costs award against a shell company when that company claims to have arranged financial support to pay, Judge Lester said.

Complete Shelf complained potential legal costs set at $162,400 is too high.

Judge Lester ruled Christchurch Council is entitled to take into account extra legal costs it may face given that Wolfbrook consultants involved in the building consent application are now involved in the litigation.

Complete Shelf Company No.8 Ltd v. Christchurch City Council – High Court (20.05.25 & 4.08.26)

26.218

Family Trust: Ross v. Hoffman

  

Weeks before Carl Hoffman’s death in 2024, former spouse Moyra shifted into his family trust-owned Rotorua home against his express wishes and remained, with a court order needed to evict her.

The two had separated thirty-two years previously.  Moyra was paid $320,000 in 2006 on condition that she then surrendered all rights as beneficiary of Carl’s family trust; a trust he had established in 1981 at conclusion of an earlier relationship.

The trust subsequently purchased a family home on State Highway 30 at Rotorua where Carl lived with their two children: Kurt and Kane.

As trust settlor, Carl indicated to trustees that he wished to have the property sold on his death and the proceeds divided equally between his four children: Kurt and Kane, plus two children from an earlier relationship.

He also firmly told trustees that his former wife Moyra was to have no access to trust assets or the Rotorua home, saying ‘she has already had more than enough money from me.’

In the nearly two years since Carl’s death, Moyra and Kurt have continued living in the house, despite being asked to leave in readiness for a sale, paying no rent and in the company of ten cats, a dog, plus several sheep and pigs, trustees told the High Court.

The property is not being properly maintained, they claimed.

Vacant possession is necessary to achieve Carl’s wish that the property be sold and net proceeds divided amongst his children, trustees said.

Associate Judge Wild ruled Moyra and Kurt had no legal rights to remain in possession.  They were given three weeks to leave.

Trustees had offered special assistance for Kurt, Judge Wild said, offering to assist with any bond needed for a new rental and assistance in re-homing his animals.  Kurt was described as having ongoing mental health issues.

Neither Moyra nor Kurt defended the eviction application.

Ross v. Hoffman – High Court (3.08.26)

26.215