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

Freezing Order: NZ Wagyu Breeding v. SFJ Holdings

  

Having paid grazing fees twice over to stop its livestock being seized, wagyu beef farmer SFJ Holdings moved quickly to freeze sale proceeds from intended sale of a Rakaia farm claiming to be owed some five million dollars for construction of onsite feedlot barns, dismissing as commercially ridiculous claims that SFJ gifted the barns with no expectation of payment.

Japanese owned SFJ Holdings Ltd is managed in New Zealand by Temuka based Shannon Swete.

It has been caught up in the 2024 collapse of Arato Tsujino’s NZ Wagyu operations.  NZ Waygu’s liquidator is taking legal action against Mr Tsujino following allegations he diverted company funds to other business interests.

SFJ Holdings is by far the largest unsecured creditor in NZ Waygu’s liquidation.

NZ Waygu arranged grazing for approximately 36,000 SFJ beef cattle on farms across New Zealand.  SFJ paid grazing costs to NZ Waygu; payments supposed to have been on-paid to farmers providing grazing.

Evidence was given that payments owed to about 110 graziers are in arrears.  To avoid its cattle being seized, SFJ directly compensated graziers; forking out another four million dollars in addition to what had previously been paid to NZ Waygu, taking an assignment of graziers’ claims against NZ Waygu.

Almost as a side-show, SFJ Holdings’ Mr Swete heard on the rural grapevine that a farm on Rakaia Highway owned by a NZ Waygu affiliate was up for sale.

This was a property where SFJ Holdings had stumped up five million dollars to construct feedlot barns, used to finish stock prior to slaughter.

Circumstances of the Rakaia sale were suspicious.

NZ Waygu’s Mr Tsujino was the prime mover, despite no longer being a director of the affiliated company.  He wanted the sale conducted off-market; ‘under the radar.’

Mr Swete told the High Court a sale was imminent.

This at a time when reimbursement of the five million dollar feedlot cost was disputed.  NZ Waygu claims it was a gift, spent with no expectation of repayment.

Justice Dunningham ordered that proceeds of any Rakaia Highway sale be frozen, pending a full accounting of net liabilities between NZ Waygu and SFJ Holdings.

NZ Wagyu Breeding and Genetics Ltd v. SFJ Holdings Ltd – High Court (30.04.26)

26.148

Co-ownership: Ho v. Ho

  

Daughters’ empathy in buying an Auckland home for their parents to live in rent-free came unstuck seven years later when the two daughters fell out, leading to a forced sale.

Jennifer and Jessica Ho took on a substantial mortgage in 2019 when they purchased a Birkdale property on Auckland’s North Shore for their parents’ benefit.

Initially, Jessica lived at the property with her mother, while their father was in prison.  Jessica’s parents-in-law live nearby.

The High Court was told of increasing disagreement between the two daughters.  Jennifer claims Jessica is favouring their parents to her disadvantage.

Jennifer said Jessica has been receiving $600 each week from their parents; paid as rent she claims.  Reimbursement for expenses paid on their parents’ behalf, Jessica says.

In 2020, Jennifer moved to Australia.  Jessica moved to London in 2021.

Their dispute reached a head when Jennifer stopped paying her share of joint mortgage payments, forcing her sister to make good the difference.   

Attempts were made to have Jessica buy out Jennifer’s half share in the property.

The court was told Jessica could only afford to buy out her sister in stages; an offer Jennifer dismissed as unworkable.

Justice Johnstone approved Jennifer’s Property Law Act application to have the property sold, with net proceeds to be divided between the two sisters.

Jennifer is under no obligation to leave her capital tied up in a half share of the property, he said.  Her parents, aged in their early seventies, will be required to move, but they have had the benefit of seven years’ rent-free accommodation.

Justice Johnstone delayed a forced sale for two months, allowing a final chance for family to buy out Jennifer’s half share.

Ho v. Ho – High Court (28.04.26)

26.147

Maori Land: Moratti v. Pukerangiora Manatopu

  

In a novel twist, the Maori Land Court allowed a Taranaki hapu assume ownership of Maori land as an incorporated society, despite the society being a ‘legal person’ which cannot ever satisfy the usual test requiring new owners to prove ancestral links to the land. 

Judge Warren said rules in Pukerangiora Manatopu’s constitution ensure control remains with individuals having the necessary ancestral links.

In existence for three decades, Pukerangiora Incorporated, now known as Pukerangiora Manatopu, is based at Waitara, near New Plymouth.  Its primary purpose is to preserve and promote the hapu’s cultural identity. 

The Maori Land Court was told the hapu proposed purchasing a block of land, currently registered as Maori freehold land.

In advance of the purchase, Pukerangiora sought Maori Land Court consent to ownership being taken in name of their existing incorporated society.

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

Judge Warren ruled approval depended upon the incorporated society’s rules.

The court was told membership of Pukerangiora is limited to adults approved by the hapu whakapapa committee.  Non-hapu members are not eligible for membership.

Any proposal to sell land owned by Pukerangiora Manatopu requires approval from 75 per cent of members.

Should the incorporated society be dissolved, all assets must be transferred to an organisation having a similar purpose.

Approval was given for ownership of the Maori land offered for sale to be transferred to the hapu’s incorporated society.

Pukerangiora Manatopu exists exclusively for the benefit of one hapu, Judge Warren said.

The effect of Maori land being held in name of a hapu-controlled incorporated society means the Maori Land Court will exercise only indirect supervision; primary control lies within Incorporated Societies Act rules.

Moratti v. Pukerangiora Manatopu – Maori Land Court (24.04.26)

26.146

Will: Stokes v. Wilson-Hokianga

  

Constructing his will from a template downloaded from the internet led to Brownie Eruera Wilson’s supposed will being invalidated for failure to comply with the Wills Act, resulting in daughter Bronwyn no longer being disinherited.  

The High Court was told Mr Wilson died in 2023, survived by his wife and four children.

Six years previously, one of their children convinced her parents it was important to have a will.  Preliminary discussions with a firm of Te Puke lawyers petered out; potential legal costs meant the family decided instead to draft their own document.

The document signed by Mr Wilson stated his ownership of customary Maori land holdings was to pass to three of his four children, plus a grandson.

Daughter Bronwyn was specifically excluded; a consequence of allegations about abuse, leading to a split in the family, the High Court was told.

The supposed will did not comply with Wills Act formalities.  It was signed by one witness only, not the required two.

Justice Mount declined to validate the document, as permitted by the Wills Act, if it were a document ‘expressing the deceased’s testamentary intentions.’

There was no copy of the original available, only a photocopy.

There were blank spaces in the document which could be read as being a draft only, with further detail yet to be included, Justice Mount said.

There was no evidence of what was discussed earlier with his lawyer; information which could provide useful information about Mr Wilson’s intentions.

Inheritance of Mr Wilson’s customary land will now be decided by the Maori Land Court.  The general rule is that all children equally inherit customary Maori land on death of a parent.

Stokes v. Wilson-Hokianga – High Court (23.04.26)

26.142

Power of Attorney: Foster v. Seales

  

His mother stole $600,000 from a trusting friend through misuse of an enduring power of attorney.  Son Michael Seale was ordered personally to make repayment after winding up his parents’ estates without first ensuring the debt was repaid as an estate liability.

The High Court was told Noel Foster signed an enduring power of attorney in favour Sharmaine Seales in October 2020.   She was a work colleague at a garden centre; a long-time friend and someone he trusted.

Mrs Seales, together with Mr Foster, then met with staff at the Manukau branch of Bank of New Zealand setting up signing authority for her over all Mr Foster’s accounts.

In the following three months she took $600,000 out of his bank accounts; $125,000 transferred into her own bank account, the rest into a joint bank account held with her husband.

Both Mrs Seales and her husband died within weeks of each other some eighteen months later.  Sons Michael and Jamie were appointed administrators of each parent’s estate.

Evidence was given of them making no attempt to ascertain extent of estate liabilities, the debt owed Mr Foster being a debt of both their estates.

As joint estate administrators, the two sons transferred to themselves as beneficiaries their parents’ Manurewa home and proceeds of bank accounts; all completed within one month of their surviving parent’s death.

The Public Trust, as property manager for Mr Foster, sued to recover his lost $600,000.

Jamie paid $204,800 in an out of court settlement.  Legal action against him was discontinued.

Michael, who lives in Western Australia, did not defend the claim.

After a formal proof hearing, Justice Andrew ruled Mrs Seales acted in breach of trust when misappropriating money taken from Mr Foster’s bank accounts.

On her death, her estate was liable for repayment.

Michael as estate administrator became personally liable to make good this estate debt, having prematurely distributed estate assets.

He was ordered to pay $396,000.

Estate administrators seeking to avoid personal liability for unknown estate debts can protect themselves by first giving Trusts Act notice of intention to wind up an estate, Justice Andrew pointed out.

Foster v. Seales – High Court (23.04.26)

26.145