Asset Forfeiture: Commissioner of Police v. Xia

  

Suspicious Auckland restaurant staff called police after three men fled a nearby car crash to huddle in the restaurant toilet before returning to their vehicle to extract a shopping bag full of cash and then attempting to bribe staff to hide the cash for them.  They abandoned $77,800 cash at the restaurant, later confiscated as proceeds of crime.

Also abandoned at the restaurant were small quantities of ketamine, methamphetamine and cocaine, some left in the shopping bag, the rest hidden in the toilet cistern at the restaurant.

Catalyst for this chaos was a June 2024 car crash on Remuera Road in which an Audi travelling at speed hit two parked cars.

Police later caught up with occupants of the Audi.

Shuang Xia was arrested for careless driving and possession of methamphetamine for supply.

He said the cash were profits from playing poker.

Forensic examination of his banking records for the previous five years identified $1.7 million coming onto his bank account from unknown sources and $2.8 million transferred out to unidentifiable third parties.

No taxable income was declared in 2024; $5800 declared in 2023.

In the High Court, Justice Mount agreed Xia’s conduct created a strong inference that the abandoned $77,800 cash came from proceeds of crime.  He ordered the cash forfeit under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act.

The court was told Xia was convicted and fined $250 for careless driving.

Police decided not to charge him with methamphetamine dealing.

Once this decision was made, Police had no further legal justification for retaining the shopping bag cash; it should have been returned to Xia.

Police admitted their wrongdoing.  Justice Mount said it would be contrary to the public interest to refuse forfeiture of the cash simply because Police earlier wrongly held onto the money.

Xia did not attend court to challenge the forfeiture application.

Commissioner of Police v. Xia – High Court (25.5.26)

26.165

Maori Land: Puketapu E Maori Reservation v. Knuckey

  

A schism within a Te Atiawa hapu in New Plymouth is coming to a head with Maori Land Court ordering hapu members removal from their own land, ending a protest occupation near a now disused sewage treatment plant on what was previously Maori land.

The political dispute is over land taken under the Public Works Act for a sewage treatment plant near Bell Block.  It ceased operation in the mid-1980s.  Some members of the Te Atiawa Puketapu hapu demand return of the land to iwi ownership, supporting their views with a long-running land occupation.

The Maori Land Court was told named individuals who whakapapa to Puketapu hapu have been occupying nearby Maori reserve land, living in make-shift dwellings, a house bus, re-purposed containers and tents.

They ignored pleas from trustees of the reserve land that they leave.

Judge Warren issued a permanent injunction banning named individuals from the site.

Staying on site without trustees’ approval amounted to trespass.

Hapu members rights to occupy the reserved land extended to occasional customary use only.

Trustees were authorised to remove all structures left on the land.

Puketapu E Maori Reservation v. Knuckey – Maori Land Court (25.05.26)

26.164

Share Issue: Keats v. Finch

  

A universally ignored Companies Act rule requiring detailed disclosure of value provided in return for issue of shares and options was pounced on by Nigel Keats in his long running dispute with management of Connectworks Ltd, forcing public disclosure of circumstances in which his shareholding was diluted after his October 2022 resignation as director.

Connectworks provides software used by accounting and law firms.

Mr Keats was a founding shareholder and director.  He held a 5.05 per cent shareholding as at late 2025 when his latest round of litigation against the company and its management got underway, with his complaint that continuing management had improperly increased its shareholding in Connectworks from 33 per cent to 54 per cent over an eighteen month period, severely diluting his shareholding.

Registration of newly issued shares were supported by directors’ certificates baldly stating the commonly-used mantra: ‘directors are of the opinion that that the consideration and terms of issue are fair and reasonable to the company and all existing shareholders.’

Similarly worded certificates were signed on issue of share options.

In the High Court, Mr Keats argued this was insufficient detail.

In response, management provided updated information: itemising cash paid into the company in return for shares issued and disclosing that share options were issued at an exercise price of one cent per share.  Terms on which options would vest were not disclosed. 

Associate Judge Gambrill was unwilling to rule whether this was sufficient compliance in what was a fast-track summary judgment hearing.  A full court hearing is required.

Keats v. Finch – High Court (22.05.26)

26.163

Farm Mediation: McNamara Farms v. Vermaak

  

Blocked from taking immediate action by sharemilker Marthinus Vermaak’s demand that his sharemilking dispute go to mediation, Waiuku farm owner McNamara Farms had the High Court appoint receivers to take control of his mortgaged dairy herd ahead of concerns Mr Vermaak was likely to sell the herd on the sly, in what is the first instance of court intervention to override effect of the Farm Debt Mediation Act.     

The Farm Debt Mediation Act 2019 prohibits creditors from seizing farm stock without first engaging in mediation.

The High Court was told the McNamaras agreed a 50/50 sharemilking agreement with Mr Vermaak’s farming partnership for the 2025/26 season.

Sharemilkers in a 50/50 agreement are expected to own their own herd.

Not having sufficient capital to buy his own herd, Mr Vermaak was lent $600,000 by the McNamaras who then took security over his livestock.

The High Court was told the McNamaras became concerned about Mr Vermaak’s erratic behaviour.  There were allegations of meth use by Mr Vermaak.

Their sharemilking agreement required farm workers to be drug-free.  He refused to undertake drug tests.

Notice was given terminating their sharemilking agreement three months ahead of what would be season end in May 2026.

The McNamaras became anxious about enforcement of their security over Mr Vermaak’s dairy herd.

Mr Vermaak was described as being uncooperative, difficult, evasive and abusive.

Out of Mr Vermaak’s herd of some 80 cows, at least eleven had been sold already, without permission from the McNamaras as secured creditors.

Local stock and station agents were alerted; one agreeing to hold proceeds of this initial sale while the legal niceties were sorted out.

In the High Court, Justice Becroft appointed receivers to take control of the balance of the herd with authority to sell the stock and account to the McNamaras for money owed.

This was necessary as a matter of urgency, he said.

Mr Vermaak was ignoring the McNamaras rights as secured creditors.

There were fears Mr Vermaak would truck the remaining stock out of the area for sale elsewhere, or sell the animals to an abattoir.

Plus, a new sharemilker was due to move onto the farm in a little over a week.

McNamara Farms Ltd v. Vermaak – High Court (22.05.26)

26.162

Franchise: Mad Butcher v. Vickery

  

Accused of colluding with Christchurch Mad Butcher franchisee Shane Vickery in sale of his franchised butchery, Elliot Booth has been blocked for two years from operating a new butchery business operating from the same Ferry Road site with the same staff, supposedly free from Mad Butcher’s franchise terms.

In the High Court, Justice Paulsen ruled it is likely Mr Booth was well aware of rules governing the Mad Butcher Ferry Road franchise, holding Mr Booth potentially liable for ‘inducing a breach of contract;’ in effect, enforcing against Mr Booth what is a two year restraint of trade blocking Shane Vickery from setting up a new business in competition with Mad Butcher.

Mr Booth was never a party to the Mad Butcher/Vickery franchise contract.

The two year restraint of trade is intended to protect the commercial value of Mad Butcher’s supply chain and customer base.

General principles of franchise law are clear: a franchisee might establish a personal connection with customers, but business assets, both tangible and intangible, belong to the franchisor.

Evidence was given of Mr Vickery’s Harvest Wagon Ltd not renewing the lease for its Ferry Road site in early 2026 at a time when Mr Vickery was in discussions with his acquaintance Mr Booth about the possibility of Mr Booth taking up the lease and buying his business.

Unusually for a Mad Butcher franchise, Mr Vickery’s Harvest Wagon sold grocery items as well as meat.  Evidence was given of meat accounting for about 55 per cent of sales.

The court was told of both Mr Vickery and Mr Booth signalling to Mad Butcher head office that Mr Booth was buying the grocery business only.

Mad Butcher later learnt that Mr Booth had paid $800,000 to buy Mr Vickery’s business, including its butchery equipment, taken out a new seven year lease on the Ferry Road site at a lower rental than that Mad Butcher itself was willing to pay and had hired the nearly twenty employees previously working in Mr Vickery’s fresh meat department.

Imposing a temporary injunction blocking Mr Booth from operating a butchery, Justice Paulsen ruled it is seriously arguable that Mr Vickery’s Harvest Wagon and Mr Booth with his company Harvest Market 2026 Ltd worked to engineer immediate establishment of a butchery in breach of a restraint of trade prohibiting Mr Vickery or any ‘interconnected’ business from setting up in competition for a period of two years.

This injunction does not block Mr Booth’s new business from selling products other than meat.

The court was told there is ongoing litigation between Mad Butcher and Mr Vickery.

Mad Butcher Holdings Ltd v. Vickery – High Court (20.05.26)

26.161

Estate: Hata v. Bedford

  

Gina Bedford was bequeathed a half share of her late mother’s Tokoroa home, but failed to follow up on moves to buy out the other half share.  It took a court order to remove her from the property, coupled with orders that she pay rent for the period in occupation from when estate trustees asked her to pack up and leave, and reimburse the estate for ongoing mortgage payments and for any damage arising during her occupation.

She was given six weeks to vacate.

She did not contest legal action taken by estate executors.

The High Court was told Ms Bedford lived at the Papanui Street home with her mother prior to her mother’s death in 2020.

This property is the estate’s major asset; having a rateable value of some $340,000 as at May 2026.  It was bequeathed in equal shares to Ms Bedford and Shane Bedford, described in the High Court as being Ms Bedford’s cousin, but treated by family as if he were a sibling.    

Evidence was given of Ms Bedford refusing to engage in proposals that she buy out Shane’s half share.  She ignored notice to vacate given by estate trustees.

In the High Court, Justice Andrew ruled estate trustees were entitled to possession of Papanui Street, to enable a sale with net proceeds to be divided equally between the two.

He ruled estate trustees can deduct from Ms Bedford’s half share occupation rent of $40,400 for the period she unlawfully occupied the property plus ongoing mortgage expenses paid to ANZ Bank by her mother’s estate.   

Surplus cash is then to be divided equally between Ms Bedford and her five siblings as the estate’s residuary beneficiaries.

Hata v. Bedford – High Court (15.05.26)

26.160

Employment: Singh & Singh v. Sharma

  

Having defaulted on his promise to accept personal responsibility for wages and holiday pay underpaid by his company Control Plus Ltd, Vimal Sharma became liable not only for $29,600 owed two employees but was fined a further $21,500 by the Employment Court for failing to pay up.

Part of the $21,500 in fines is to be paid to the two employees, the court ordered. 

In 2025, Mr Sharma’s Auckland electrical services company Control Plus was put into liquidation by Inland Revenue.

Around the same time, he faced an investigation over wages allegedly underpaid to two employees: Manjeet Singh and Kulwinder Singh.

Following a mediation conference, Mr Sharma agreed personally to make good amounts owed Manjeet Singh ($18,600) and Kulwinder Singh ($11,000) should Control Plus not pay.

With Control Plus now in liquidation insolvent, the two employees sued in the Employment Court following Mr Sharma’s failure to pay.  He did not attend the court hearing.

Judge Holden dismissed suggestions Mr Sharma has no ability to pay.  Evidence was given of Mr Sharma named on Companies Office records as director and shareholder of three other companies which still appear to be active.

Of the fines imposed under the Employment Relations Act for non-compliance, Judge Holden ordered: $6750 be paid to Kulwinder Singh; $7000 to Manjeet Singh.

Singh & Singh v. Sharma – Employment Court (14.05.26)

26.159

Property: Collins v. Winspear

  

It was a one hundred year old boundary problem, with neighbours over $200,000 apart in agreement over the remedy; Wellington Lyall Bay residents Adam Collins and Jodi Turton arguing substantial compensation was needed from neighbour Shashil Winspear to make good the fact his house overhung their common boundary.

The District Court ordered a Property Law Act boundary adjustment for the ‘wrongly placed structure’ with Mr Winspear to pay $14,000 compensation on gaining title to the affected seven square metres of neighbouring land and pay re-surveying costs.    

The misplaced boundary followed sloppy surveying work on Queens Drive in 1921.

Houses were built on what is now numbers 266 and 268 before the land was later surveyed and divided into two separate lots.

A small part of the house at number 266, now owned by Mr Winspear, was included in the surveyed lot for number 268.

The legal nicety is that part of Mr Winspear’s house and the land under it came to be owned by his neighbour; a complication should either choose to sell.

The District Court was told buyers of the respective properties over the years were aware of the boundary issue.  Despite suggestions by various of these former owners that the position should be regularised, nothing was ever done.

It had not been a practical issue; that is, until objection was taken to Mr Winspear’s attempts to carry out maintenance on exterior of his house.

Lawyers became involved.

He was served with a trespass notice.

It was alleged that Mr Collins and Ms Turton lied about not being aware of the boundary encroachment when they purchased number 268, as they demanded Mr Winspear surrender a large portion of his property in return for a transfer of the affected seven square metres.   

In court, Mr Winspear argued his property rights were protected by an implied easement; for decades the then neighbours had accepted existence of the encroachment.  No compensation was required, he claimed.

Judge Warburton ruled the history of incomplete negotiations between past neighbours signalled no such implied consent had been given; the problem had just been left for someone else to deal with.

Current neighbours were poles apart in their assessment of compensation to be paid in return for a boundary adjustment.

Mr Winspear offered $7000.  Mr Collins and Ms Turton said a better figure was $228,000; which included twenty per cent of the cost Mr Winspear would have to pay if forced to relocate his house.

Judge Warburton ordered payment of $14,000: the current value assessed by a valuer for 7.3 square metres of residential land in Lyall Bay.

Collins v. Winspear – District Court (11.05.26)

26.158

Leaky Home: Chamberlain v. Omana North Ltd

Disgruntled buyers cannot affirm yet disaffirm their contract at the same time, as Chamberlain family found to their cost when seeking to cancel an Auckland $1.25 million apartment purchase after earlier carrying out lengthy negotiations over weathertightness repairs. 

Their purchase stands, the High Court ruled.  At best, the Chamberlains get damages.

In late November 2022, Tony and Lyn Chamberlain settled their purchase of a newly-constructed Milford residential apartment, taking title in name of their family trust.

The contract included a maintenance clause requiring vendor, Mark Gunton’s Omana North Ltd, make good any defects notified in the next twelve months.

Within months, Omana North was given notice of sundry issues requiring attention: insufficient cedar cladding clearance, incomplete painting, unfinished grouting, wiring, and other sundry issues.

Weeks later, low-level black mould and elevated moisture levels signalled problems with water ingress.

Omana North moved the Chamberlains to another apartment, rent free, while remedial work was carried out.

Over the next two years there were ongoing disputes over the extent of work required.

More than one Auckland Council building consent was needed before remedial work could proceed.

By May 2025, the Chamberlains were sufficiently fed up that they gave formal Contract and Commercial Law Act notice supposedly cancelling their agreement to buy, alleging failure by Omana North to comply with the maintenance clause.

In the High Court, Associate Judge Gellert ruled there was no breach of the maintenance clause; delays arose because of the need for detailed inspections by specialist third party investigators and time taken to get Council consents for remedial work.

Even if there were a breach of the maintenance clause, the Chamberlains had lost any right to cancel, having affirmed the contract by their ongoing engagement with Omana North over several years seeking to remedy construction issues, Judge Gellert ruled.

Chamberlain v. Omana North Ltd – High Court (11.05.26)

26.157

 

Joint Venture: Peart v. Samudrala

  

At a time when the Pearts’ marriage was disintegrating, Suresh Chandra Samudrala arrived on the scene with what turned out to be grandiose plans for redevelopment of their Hikurangi property, promising handsome returns.  In the end, they lost their home and their money, having to sue Mr Samudrala.   

The High Court was told that at time of the Pearts’ separation in 2013 Mr Samudrala took an interest in subdividing their six hectare lifestyle block at 56A George Street at Hikurangi, just north of Whangarei.  Access to  the proposed subdivision required purchase of the neighbouring property: number 54.

The Pearts were led to believe he was an architect and experienced property developer.

No joint venture agreement was ever formalised.

Plans evolved over a period of several months, seeing the Pearts sell 56A for $500,000: Helen Peart remaining owner as to a one-third share; Mr Samudrala and his spouse owning the remaining two-third’s share.

Mr Peart was encouraged to leave in the $163,000 received as his half share net from sale of 56A as an ‘investment’ in the proposed subdivision.

A bank loan was taken out for the Samudralas purchase of neighbouring number 54, with Ms Peart indirectly liable on this loan, agreeing to make payment only if the Samudralas defaulted.     

The planned subdivision never went ahead.

The lifestyle block at 56A was sold in a mortgagee sale.

This left Ms Peart with nowhere to live, forced to live for a time in her car, dependent on the charity of friends, the court was told.

In the District Court, Mr Peart sued to recover his $163,000 ‘investment.’

Mr Samudrala claimed this was an equity investment, lost when the project foundered.

Judge Spear ruled it was a loan, ordering repayment.

Also in the District Court, Mrs Peart was successful in claiming Mr Samudrala was in breach of fiduciary duties arising from their business relationship.

There was ample evidence that Mr Samudrala had breached the trust and confidence Ms Peart had placed with him, Judge Spear ruled.

There was evidence of Mr Samudrala not disclosing a 2014 valuation report advising the lifestyle block was ‘not currently ripe for subdivision.’

Further, Mr Samudrala did not place the $163,000 advance received from Mr Peart in a bank account under the joint control of Ms Peart and Mr Samudrala as previously agreed and he then proceeded to divert $100,000 of these funds for his own personal benefit.     

Unhappy with the amount in damages awarded in the District Court, Ms Peart appealed.

In the High Court, Justice Gault ordered Mr Samudrala pay Ms Peart the $167,500 she would have received if the family home had been sold outright in 2014 and she were paid her half share of the net proceeds, plus interest at five per cent on this $167,500 running from 2014.

In addition, Ms Peart was awarded $15,000 general damages for mental distress and $15,000 as exemplary damages to mark judicial displeasure at Mr Samudrala’s conduct.

Ms Peart was also entitled to damages for any proved expenses arising from the failed project, including premature relocation of her horse-riding business and legal aid contributions funding her claim.

Peart v. Samudrala – High Court (8.05.26)

26.155

Liquidation: MacNeill v. NZ Fibreglass (2025) Ltd

  

Marion MacNeill thought all was sorted between her and her brother after agreeing to buy out his half share in their company NZ Fibreglass (2025) for $80,000 only to see brother William attempt to wind up the company three months later claiming he was still owed $6200 wages. 

Associate Judge Taylor dismissed the winding up application.  There is a genuine dispute whether payment for wages is due, he ruled.

The High Court was told of ongoing acrimony between the two siblings.

Ms MacNeill alleges her brother is in cahoots with Ross George who sold the business to them three years previously.

Ms MacNeill’s NZ Fibreglass (2025) Ltd is currently engaged in two disputes with companies associated with Mr George: the first over sale price adjustments for stock and debtors included in the MacNeills earlier purchase; the second over rentals payable for lease of a Morrin Road site in Auckland suburb St Johns.

Ms MacNeill says her brother’s full wages entitlement was paid out as part of their March 2025 settlement agreement where she bought out his half share.

This is still a matter of dispute, Judge Taylor said.

A supposedly unpaid creditor cannot force a debtor company into liquidation for non-payment where the debt is genuinely disputed.

Separately, Judge Taylor ruled there was insufficient evidence that NZ Fibreglass (2025) Ltd is insolvent; proof of insolvency alone is grounds to force a company into liquidation.

MacNeill v. NZ Fibreglass (2025) Ltd – High Court (8.05.26)

26.156

Utilities: First Gas v. Commerce Commission

  

Taranaki-based First Gas successfully challenged Commerce Commission’s 2023 regulatory changes which would have had the effect of reducing prices for customers served by its 7500 kilometre network.

There was insufficient evidence to support departure from previous practice of setting gas utilities weighted average cost of capital at the same level as that for electricity utilities, the High Court ruled.

Gas and electricity utilities are natural monopolies.  It is unlikely that any competitor will seek to duplicate their distribution network.  Monopoly profits can be extracted with excessive pricing.

Commerce Commission seeks to limit monopoly profits, primarily by determining the ‘true’ cost of capital a particular utility would face if it were operating in a competitive market; a calculation requiring some speculative assumptions. This calculation feeds into prices charged consumers.

The Commission’s balancing act is that the weighted average cost of capital needs to be high enough to ensure utilities recoup the cost of their investment, but not so high as to generate excessive profits.

As part of its regular review of utility pricing, Commerce Commission decided in 2023 to differentiate between gas utilities and electricity utilities, favouring electricity utilities on the basis they require greater capital investment: failure of electricity supply is more common than failure of gas supply, with the economic effect of any failure in the electricity network being more catastrophic, the Commission decided.

A higher weighted average cost of capital is justified for electricity networks so as to reduce the possibility of under-investment in network assets, the Commission said.

Gas networks were no longer considered ‘similar enough’ to electricity networks for the two to be treated the same.    

The only major gas network disruption was in 2011, when a landslide cut a gas pipeline in Taranaki; an network outage not caused by any lack of investment.

On appeal by First Gas, the High Court ruled the Commission did not provide compelling new evidence or analysis as to why gas networks should now be treated differently.

Forcing a change to gas network’s weighted average cost of capital without adequate evidence would undermine confidence in the current regulatory framework, creating uncertainty for businesses and prejudicing future investment decisions, the High Court ruled.

First Gas Ltd v. Commerce Commission – High Court (7.05.26)

26.153

Fraud: R.v. Bhangu, Singh & Singh

  

All sentenced to terms of imprisonment as an organised criminal group after scamming Spark and bank customers in cold call frauds, Pargat Singh Bhangu, Gurwinder Singh and Harmandeep Singh went to considerable lengths setting up the scam: establishing bank accounts in advance of the frauds to create a veneer of business respectability; bribing homeless men into acting as money mules; and using an almost identical script to entrap nearly thirty elderly and vulnerable victims.

Funds in excess of $800,000 were extracted from victims cajoled into downloading software enabling the group to control their bank accounts, under the pre-text of making their bank accounts ‘safe’ from suspected fraud.

In one instance, a victim was kept on the phone for five hours whilst unwittingly assisting the fraudsters.

Frauds continued after arrest of the main offenders in 2024; the electronic fingerprint left by their modus operandi leading to arrest of a further offender.

The District Court was told virtual private networks were used in an attempt to disguise the fraudsters’ cold call locations.

Having gained control of a victim’s bank account, funds were extracted with fictitious references appended for the likes of rent, or car payment, and in one case a supposed purchase of a sex toy by one victim.

In other cases, attempts were made to purchase gold and silver, to be delivered to addresses accessible to the fraudsters.

Knowledge of customer PIN numbers led to fraudulent online credit card purchases.

Stolen funds were also laundered through bank accounts operated by vulnerable homeless individuals, with funds then extracted at ATMs.

One victim was persuaded to put all her bank cards in an envelope in her letterbox for checking, only to see the cards stolen.

Some of the stolen funds were transferred to associates in India.

Thirty year old Banghu was described as the ring-leader, masterminding the frauds over a five year period.  He was sentenced to three years and eight months imprisonment for what was described as calculated and cynical offending.

Banghu has three previous convictions for money-laundering.  The court was told he has not paid reparations as ordered following these earlier convictions.

Harmandeep Singh participated in the criminal group for eight months, continuing to offend after his colleagues had been arrested.  He was sentenced to two years eight months imprisonment.     

Gurwinder Singh was sentenced to two years imprisonment for his four months involvement in the criminal enterprise.

All three pleaded guilty.

R. v. Bhangu, Singh & Singh – District Court (7.05.26)

26.154

Bylaw: Burton v. Queenstown Lakes District

  

Bylaws restricting trading activity cannot be arbitrary and imposed without consultation the High Court ruled, invalidating a Queenstown Lakes bylaw having the perverse effect of requiring mobile food outlets to close for thirty minutes after every hour’s trading regardless of whether customers were waiting.

The bylaw made its way on to books of Queenstown Lakes District Council after a bylaw restricting busking was extended to mobile traders.

Lake foreshore promenade at Queenstown is approximately 150 metres long and six metres wide; prime real estate for businesses seeking to attract passing trade.

The High Court was told frequent complaints about buskers had previously led to Council intervention, requiring registration and limits on how long a performer could monopolise one foreshore spot.

As part of Queenstown Lakes regular review of existing bylaws, a new 2023 bylaw saw busking restrictions extended to mobile food outlets also working the promenade.

Evidence was given that no public notice was given of this intended change.  It was inserted for Council approval only after an earlier Council planning hearing had heard public objections to other planned bylaw amendments.

Affected mobile shop operators sued: complaining it was totally impracticable to require mobile shops to close periodically during trading hours; claiming enactment of the bylaw was invalid.

Customers would be left waiting in line, unable to be served for the next thirty minutes.  Outlets serving hot food faced further difficulties in keeping food safe.

It was also inadequate to impose a bylaw that there must be a fifty metre distance between mobile shops, they claimed.  It may be necessary to keep buskers fifty metres apart, but only three mobile traders could operate along the promenade at any one time if the same rule were to apply to them.

Justice Lang ruled Queenstown District’s operating and spacing rules were invalid as applied to mobile traders.  The bylaw is arbitrary and potentially unjustified, he ruled.

Council process in approving the new bylaw was flawed in that affected businesses were not given an opportunity to be heard, Justice Lang ruled.

Burton v. Queenstown Lakes District Council – High Court (6.05.26)

26.152

Resale: Pacific Heights v. Jeff

  

Forced resale of prime residential sections forming part of a new subdivision in a depressed market following a buyer’s default will alert potential buyers to the extent market prices have fallen.  Instead, Palmerston North developer Pacific Heights held off, retaining title and instead suing Elizabeth Jeff for the drop in market value after she defaulted on a 2021 purchase.  The one benefit for Ms Jeff is that she was not liable to pay the fourteen per cent contractual interest as further damages for default, because there had been no resale.

But the High Court did add discretionary Contract and Commercial Law Act interest at ten per cent to her liability for the section’s drop in market value.

Ms Jeff paid a deposit to Pacific Heights Development Ltd on her October 2021 purchase of a $489,000 section, part of a new subdivision on Atlantic Drive, Aokautere.   

The High Court was told she had vanished after it came to pay the balance three years later, when title to lots in the subdivision came available.

In April 2025, the High Court ruled she was liable to complete the contract.

Substituted service was needed to give her notice of the then pending case.

She made no appearance.

More than a year later, Pacific Heights returned to court, seeking to quantify damages.

Evidence was given that Pacific Heights still held title; it had tried to resell but could not find a buyer, it said.  Market conditions were described as depressed.

A registered valuer appraised the $489,000 section as now having a market value of $350,000.

Associate judge Skelton ruled Ms Jeff is liable for the difference in value, less her deposit paid previously: a sum of $115,800.

Pacific Heights unsuccessfully claimed interest for late payment should run on the $115,800 debt at the rate set out in their contract: fourteen per cent.

Contract wording for payment of interest applies where a buyer defaults and there is a shortfall on resale, Judge Skelton ruled.

There has been no resale.  Pacific Heights retained the property, claiming damages for the reduction in value.

Stating it would be unjust for Pacific Heights be paid no interest at all, Judge Skelton applied a Contract and Commercial Law Act discretion to award a reasonable rate of interest: assessed at ten per cent; running for the fifteen month period between Ms Jeff’s failure to settle and the subsequent court ruling holding her liable to pay $115,800 damages.

It was not clear whether Pacific Heights has been able to track down Ms Jeff.

Pacific Heights Development v. Jeff – High Court (5.05.26)

26.151

Trustee: Petersen v. Dudley

  

Suspended as trustee of a Kaitaia ahu whenua trust, Rose Dudley persisted in ignoring Maori Land Court orders as she attempted to negotiate favoured access to her own home at the expense of other customary owners, leading to her removal as trustee.

A twelve hectare block off Fairburn Road operates as an ahu whenua trust, hosting a papakainga for its customary owners.  Access to their homes depends upon an informal road permitted by pakeha owners of neighbouring land.

The Maori Land Court was told of customary owners obtaining funding to upgrade their housing, conditional in part on formal road access being established.  This required negotiations with their neighbour, and registration of a surveyed easement.

Evidence was given of Rose Dudley, as one of the customary owners, persistently undermining the trust’s proposed plans for an easement, favouring a route benefitting her home.

She countermanded trustee instructions given to surveyors, increasing trust costs with superfluous survey work undertaken.

In October 2025, the Maori Land Court suspended Ms Dudley’s authority to act as a trustee.

Then in May 2026, she was removed as a trustee with immediate effect.

Ms Dudley was no longer working in the best interest of their ahu whenua trust, Judge Williams said.

She had acted in contempt of court by ignoring her earlier suspension as trustee; contacting funding agencies causing confusion in their minds about trust plans and activities.

This raised a risk of funding being withdrawn, Judge Williams said.

It is very clear she has little comprehension of what is required of a trustee and the fact that she could not act unilaterally.  She refused to follow legal advice and refused to follow decisions made collectively by trustees, he said.    

Ms Dudley separately applied to have all the other trustees dismissed, without successs.

Petersen v. Dudley – Maori Land Court (5.05.26)

26.150

Credit Contract: Beaven v. ANZ

  

Adding to the $64 million already paid out for failing to make full credit contract disclosure to nearly 100,000 customers,  ANZ must refund all interest paid over a three year period by a further 17,000 customers with the High Court ruling financial consequences of the failed disclosure for each customer could not simply be dismissed by ANZ as a small rounding error.

Payment due is not finalised.  The High Court set out parameters for calculation across the 17,000 customer accounts, requiring return of interest payments made over the period 2015-2018.

ANZ has already compensated nearly 100,000 customers with payments totalling $64.4 million: of this $35 million being a Commerce Commission settlement with ANZ admitting a failure to exercise the due diligence and skill of a responsible lender; $29.4 million being further compensation for what was described as a ‘coding error.’

Corrected disclosure letters were eventually delivered to affected customers. 

ANZ’s problems followed use of a third party developer in 2015 to design and implement changes to the Bank’s existing software package generating Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act disclosure letters advising customers of loan terms and payment amounts.

The High Court was told the revised package failed to include interest accrued, but not yet charged, for those customers renegotiating existing loans.

This error was picked up only after customer complaints.

ANZ did not finally remediate disclosure for three years.

Bank customer Andrew Beavan was selected as lead plaintiff in a class action against ANZ.

In 2015, he had renegotiated his existing Bank home loan; agreeing a fixed interest rate on that part of his home loan previously floating.

The Bank admitted its disclosure error, failing to properly calculate ongoing fortnightly interest payments.

This disclosure failure was of no economic significance, the Bank claimed.  Deviation from the correct disclosure amounted to no more than 0.4 per cent and 0.19 per cent for interest payments incorrectly calculated on Mr Beaven’s renegotiated loan.

Justice Venning ruled strict compliance with the Act was necessary.

ANZ was ordered to refund $32,700 to Mr Beaven: all interest paid for the period ANZ failed to make correct disclosure.

Class action litigators will use this formula to finalise a global settlement with ANZ on behalf of the remaining 17,000 customers signed up to its class action.

Beaven v. ANZ Bank – High Court (4.05.26)

26.149