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

Financial Reporting: FMA v. QEX Logistics

  

For financial reporting, a first ever: former listed company QEX Logistics and director Jingjie Xue were fined for failing to file financial statements.

Ten years on from enactment, Financial Markets Authority for the first time has prosecuted a listed company for failing to file financial statements.

Financial Markets Conduct Act requires timely filing of financial statements by ‘reporting entities,’ intended to keep investors better informed.

With legal action filed in 2024, FMA decided to pick over the carcase of former listed company QEX Logistics Ltd.

It currently sits moribund on the Companies Office register.

QEX was floated to the public in 2018 as a vehicle promoting NZ/China trade; delisted in 2022 after reporting losses of stock valued at some four million dollars and mass resignation of all directors other than founding director Jingjie Xue.

The High Court was told QEX had over 400 shareholders by the 2020 financial year.

It has failed to file financial statements since the 2021 financial year.  Filing requirements continued beyond delisting.

Mr Xue said resignation of fellow directors left the company with insufficient expertise to prepare annual financial statements.

It was agreed failure to file was not a case of dishonesty, rather negligence and mismanagement.

Justice Powell fined QEX Logistics $875,000; Mr Xue $175,000 with payment by instalments over the next eight months.

Mr Xue was also banned from being director of any reporting entity for the next three years.  In general terms, a ‘reporting entity’ is any substantial commercial entity holding investor funds.

Financial Markets Authority v. QEX Logistics Ltd & Xue – High Court (23.04.26)

26.144

Negligence: Deer v. South Pacific Avionics

  

When Jason Deer flew his Cessna aircraft to Nelson’s private Malibu airfield for regular maintenance in May 2021, little did he expect to then see it on fire, written off when fuel vapour ignited after a South Pacific Avionics employee applied ground power to the aircraft whilst installing a new magnetometer.

Mr Deer received a $315,000 insurance payout.

Seeking to recover its losses, his insurer sued exercising its rights of subrogation, unsuccessfully claiming Auckland-based South Pacific Avionics Ltd was negligent.

Mr Deer was working at the back of the hanger when fire broke out, calling the fire brigade as his aircraft was pushed out of the hanger and futile attempts made to extinguish the blaze.

The District Court was told Jimmy Ferguson, operating as Ferguson Aero Ltd, was already working on engine maintenance when South Pacific Avionics’ employee, Ryan Ryder, was called to the job by Mr Deer, asking him to carry out a 24-month avionics inspection and also install a magnetometer, part of an aircraft’s navigation system.

Evidence was given of Mr Ferguson previously removing the aircraft battery before commencing work on the fuel lines.

The two were working at the same time on different parts of the aircraft.

Mr Deer claimed he did not hear Mr Ryder seek an all clear before connecting a ground power unit.

Mr Ferguson subsequently worked on the fuel lines for some ten minutes before fuel vapour ignited following a spark from an exposed alternator wire accidentally touching what was now a ‘live’ aircraft.

Judge Kelly ruled the insurer failed to prove any failure by Mr Ryder to check with Mr Ferguson before connecting ground power.  It is likely he did so, Judge Kelly said, but was unaware at the time that this would energise all aircraft electrical systems even with the aircraft master switch turned off.

Judge Kelly further said it is not unsafe under any circumstances to connect a ground power unit when maintenance work is underway; it is only unsafe for the brief period in which a fuel line might be open during maintenance.

The fire was ruled an accident; there was no proof of negligence.

Deer v. South Pacific Avionics Ltd – District Court (23.04.26)

16.143

Restructuring: Ge v. Francis

  

Described as repugnant commercial conduct, Cong Liu’s Little Hen Ltd was censured in the High Court for improperly forcing a property developer into liquidation and allegedly forging contracts; all part of a scheme to recover a commercial debt.

Liquidation of GLZJ Ltd was invalidated with control restored to Christchurch investor Binbo Ge.  Justice Becroft signalled Little Hen should pay compensation for wasted liquidation costs to date, estimated at about $50,000.

The High Court was told Little Hen sold land in 2022 at Onehunga in Auckland earmarked for property development to GLZJ Ltd for $8 million. Little Hen left in $2.6 million as vendor finance on a two year term loan.  It registered no mortgage; mortgage security went to another financier funding the proposed development.

GLZJ’s plans fell through.  Insufficient pre-sales killed the project.

It on-sold the land, finding a buyer at $6.47 million with $1.6 million left by GLZJ as vendor finance.

A scrap developed over this $1.6 million, being GLZJ’s only remaining asset after its foray into the Onehunga project.

Construction company Chimbusco, owned by Tingsong Qui wanted a slice, while Little Hen was increasingly nervous about recovery of its $2.6 million term loan.

Little Hen was instrumental in pushing GLZJ into liquidation.

Eighteen months elapsed before GLZJ challenged Little Hen’s actions, complaining no debt was due and that Little Hen was ‘motivated by ill will’ when it forced GLZJ into liquidation.

The High Court was told of an earlier flurry of emails in July 2023 in which Little Hen and GLZJ bargained over how to split repayments to be received by GLZJ’s on its $1.6 million vendor finance.

Justice Becroft ruled they agreed at that time that the two year $2.6 million term loan owed by GLZJ to Little Hen was to be cancelled, replaced by a ten year $800,000 term loan with payment of the reduced amount now personally guaranteed by Mr Ge.

This deal went beyond being simply an agreement to agree, Justice Becroft ruled.  Agreed terms were clear.  Little Hen, as promised, immediately withdrew a caveat otherwise blocking GLZJ’s onward sale of the Onehunga property.

Little Hen later improperly forced GLZJ into liquidation for supposed default on a two year term loan that no longer existed, Justice Becroft ruled.  The two year loan had been replaced by a new ten year term loan for a lesser amount.

Mr Ge’s promise to personally guarantee the reduced loan was an extra benefit, making the varied contract enforceable.

It came out in evidence that a critical part of negotiations on behalf of Little Hen was supposedly conducted by Chimbusco’s Mr Qui, rather than by owner of Little Hen, Mr Liu.

This formed part of an unsuccessful argument that the July 2023 email negotiations amounted to no more than an agreement to agree, rather than a binding contract.  

Justice Becroft questioned the credibility of both Mr Qui and Mr Liu as regards both their evidence about the 2023 negotiations and the validity of a September 2022 contract in which GLZJ supposedly sold some of its Onehunga land back to Little Hen.

The court was not asked to rule on validity of this 2022 contract, but Justice Becroft queried how a contract dated September 2022 came to be recorded on an Auckland District Law Society contract template that was not available for use prior to May 2023.

Ge v. Francis – High Court (22.04.26)

26.141

Professional Negligence: Harvestfield Holdings v. McIntyre

  

Consulting engineer Scott McIntyre was ordered to pay $2.6 million damages covering redesign costs and extra loan interest payments after his faulty work delayed a West Auckland subdivision.

The High Court was told work on Harvestfield Holdings 145-lot residential subdivision in Sunnyvale was delayed eighteen months while Mr McIntyre’s engineering designs were reworked and new council approvals obtained.

Evidence was given of his initial engineering plans setting benchmark levels too low.

Several lots did not have sufficient fall for connection to public mains.

Other lots were not of sufficient height to satisfy council requirements of finished floor levels to be at least one metre above neighbouring Oratia Stream’s baseline 100 year floodplain.

Roading set too low saw nearly thirty lots with driveway gradients exceeding those required by council.   

Stage one earthworks commenced in early 2016 were substantially complete before design errors became apparent.

Mr McIntyre initially worked with Harvestfield to correct mistakes, before being removed from the job.

In the High Court, Justice Andrew ruled Mr McIntyre liable for professional negligence.  

He was responsible for the initial engineering plans and designs, under subcontract from Projenz.

Errors made delayed construction.

Mr McIntyre is liable for costs caused by this delay Justice Andrew ruled: redesign and rebuild costs ($658,500) and wasted interest costs ($1.9 million).

Evidence was given of Harvestfield paying ongoing interest at 12.5 per cent on its loan finance during the eighteen month delay.

Mr McIntyre was disqualified from defending Harvestfield’s claim, after failing to comply with a court timetable for filing documents.

Harvestfield Holdings Ltd v. McIntyre – High Court (21.04.26)

26.140

Put Option: Wololo Ltd v. Dowell

  

What was intended as a rescue strategy salvaging something from the failure of advertising agency Lionize subsequently saw Wellington’s entrepreneurial investor Peter Dowell ordered to repay $1.5 million, forced to buy-back the business.

The High Court was told Mr Dowell joined Lionize director Michael Taylor in a 2022 salvage operation, picking the bones out of Lionize after it went into administration reportedly owing five million dollars.

They set up Playmaker Media Ltd, representing potential future income which might eventuate from former Lionize staff continuing in business, tapping existing industry contacts.

Wololo Ltd, controlled by Tim Pointer and Mat Rowe, purchased Playmaker Media following Mr Dowell’s indications the newly revived business could generate annual revenues of between $500,000 and $800,000.

Mr Dowell signed a put option and a guarantee, undertaking to buy back the business if a $500,000 target was not achieved in year one.  He also mortgaged, as security, a Petone property owned by a company he controlled: Cuba 444 Ltd.

Before the year was up, it was clear Playmaker Media would not get anywhere near projected sales targets.

Wololo Ltd put Cuba 444 into liquidation, forcing sale of the Petone property; getting nothing.  There was no surplus on sale after payment to a prior ranking secured creditor.

With Mr Dowell facing enforcement of the put option, he attempted to find new investors willing to take over Playmaker Media.

The High Court was told a third party buyer named as Close to Home Pty Ltd did sign an unconditional contract agreeing to pay AUD 1.7 million, but never settled.

When sued by Wololo Ltd, Mr Dowell claimed legal action should be taken against the defaulting Close to Home; any liability on the put option expired on this third party sale, he claimed. 

In the High Court, Justice Grau ruled any concessions Wololo Ltd allowed in giving Mr Dowell time to find a third party buyer did not detract from the clear and unambiguous put option and guarantee he had signed.

He was ordered to pay back $1.5 million to Wololo Ltd.

The High Court was told Mr Dowell was previously offered an opportunity to repay the debt by instalments, but did not take up Wololo’s offer.

Wololo Ltd v. Dowell – High Court (17.04.26)

26.139

Trust: re 'Generations Family Trust'

  

High Court ‘blessing’ in advance of trust restructuring absolves trustees from any personal liability, a process used by trustees of an un-named multi-million dollar discretionary family trust where tax consequences following restructuring are still unknown.

Given the alias ‘Generations Family Trust’ in a publicly released court judgment, the Wellington-based Trust was described as holding shares valued in the ‘tens of millions’ of dollars, together with five million dollars in bank term PIE deposits.

The Trust was established in 1984 by a couple who had no children together, but between them had nine children from previous relationships.

The two died a few years apart, more than twenty years ago.

Trustees have subsequently made annual payments to beneficiaries.

The High Court was told there are currently fifty trust beneficiaries: encompassing the settlors’ nine children, plus grand-children and great-grandchildren.  These beneficiaries live all round the world; primarily in New Zealand and Australia. 

Following general agreement that it was time to windup the Trust, trustees liaised with lawyers, accountants, actuaries and tax specialists, settling on a formula to divide trust capital into nine tranches.

Trustees propose cashing up trust assets; proceeds settled on new multiple trusts.

Their proposal put to beneficiaries raised no objections, other than concerns about potential tax liability.  With beneficiaries spread across multiple tax jurisdictions and with each jurisdiction having its own tax rules, some beneficiaries would see their windfall payout cut back because of tax due.

When applying to the High Court for Trusts Act ‘blessing’ to their proposal, trustees said they intend to hold back some assets from sale.

Payment in kind rather than cash might be more tax advantageous for some beneficiaries.

For others, the Trust might pay their tax bill out of trust assets.

Despite the lack of finality as to how assets might be distributed, Justice Boldt gave his blessing.   

The proposal is balanced and properly reflects the interests of beneficiaries, he said.

The consultation process has been robust and detailed, he added.

re ‘Generations Family Trust’ – High Court (15.04.26)

26.138

Employment: Robertson Motors v. Renner

  

Sales manager Ian Renner was ordered to pay $900,000 damages for lost sales incurred by employer Palmerston North motor vehicle dealer Robertson Isuzu after he plotted to poach customers in advance of his 2023 resignation.

Mr Renner breached legal duties of fidelity, good faith and loyalty owed any employer, the Employment Court ruled.

On a salary of $65,000 plus ten per cent sale commissions at time of his departure, Mr Renner had worked for Robertson Isuzu since 2004.

Evidence was given of Mr Renner being the driving force behind a Robertson Isuzu 2016 exclusive dealership negotiated with Japanese company ShinMaywa, supplier of truck add-ons such as rubbish compactors, side-tippers and side-loaders.

Waste Management (NZ) became a major Robertson Isuzu customer.   

The court was told of Roberston Isuzu being blind-sided by Mr Renner’s July 2023 resignation.  He was on sick leave at the time, prior to major surgery.

Only then through comment from customers did it learn Mr Renner personally had become ShinMaywa’s point of contact in New Zealand. 

Robertson Isuzu’s analysis of his work devices found evidence of his email discussions with both ShinMaywa and Robertson Isuzu clients prior to his resignation, setting up Mr Renner to become ShinMaywa’s New Zealand representative.

In the Employment Court, Mr Renner challenged use of this evidence.  These devices had been uplifted from his home while on sick leave, without disclosing that Robertson Isuzu planned to have the contents forensically examined, he said.  

It is not necessary for an employer to be completely candid about inquiries it is making into an employee’s conduct, Judge Holden said.  It was reasonable for Robertson Isuzu to uplift the devices without alerting Mr Renner, she said.  Isuzu Robertson owned the devices.

It was not a breach of confidentiality for Mr Renner to share Isuzu Robertson customer email addresses with both ShinMaywa and his new clients.  These addresses were already a matter of common knowledge; previously displayed as multiple address lists in Robertson Isuzu mailouts.

Mr Renner undermined Robertson Isuzu’s business in the four month period prior to his resignation, Judge Holden ruled.

He took steps to have himself appointed ShinMaywa’s New Zealand representative and represented to Robertson Isuzu clients that Robertson Isuzu would be in no position to deal with their orders after his resignation.

One week after Mr Renner’s resignation, ShinMawa contacted Robertson Isuzu advising that its exclusive dealership rights were cancelled, asking Robertson Isuzu to ‘confirm’ the change.

Attempts by Robertson Isuzu to negotiate with ShinMaywa were ignored.

Robertson Isuzu claimed it had suffered losses totalling $2.24 million, on the assumption its exclusive dealership would have run at least until 2030.

Judge Holden awarded $900,000 damages as ‘loss of a chance;’ an assessment of profits Robertson Isuzu would have made if Mr Renner had complied with a restraint of trade in his employment contract prohibiting him from soliciting existing customers for six months following resignation.

This figure is to be reduced by amounts still owed Mr Renner for commission earned on vehicles sold while employed at Robertson Isuzu; set at $75,800 in a preliminary assessment.

Mr Renner has been free to compete against his former employer since his six month restraint of trade ended.

Robertson Motors v. Renner – Employment Court (14.04.26)

26.137

Estate: Greaves v. Bright

  

Disliking terms of her late mother’s will, joint executor Angela Bright set about reallocating which beneficiary would get what, causing the High Court to remove her as executor.

Her mother died in 2022, naming Angela and fellow sibling Sydney Greaves as estate executors.

Their family home at Kaitaia in Northland is the estate’s major asset.  Sharing equally as beneficiaries under their mother’s 2015 will are her four adult children: Angela, Sydney, Laurie and Myrtle.

The High Court was told Angela favours their mother’s earlier 2004 will which does not name Sydney as a beneficiary.  Sydney was not included as a beneficiary in the earlier will because their mother considered gifts already made to him were sufficient, Angela said.

Angela alleges Sydney connived with their mother to be added back in as a beneficiary in the later 2015 will.

In the High Court, Justice O’Gorman said there had been no formal challenge to the 2015 will.

As one of the two executors, Angela set about undermining terms of this will: allowing brother Laurie to shift into the family home rent free (to protect estate assets, she said); and refusing to have the property listed for sale (preventing Sydney from receiving his one-quarter share of the estate).

Using Trusts Act powers, Justice O’Gorman removed Angela as executor, ruling her removal was ‘necessary and desirable’ to ensure their mother’s estate was properly administered.

Brother Sydney is now the sole executor.

Greaves v. Bright – High Court (14.04.26)

26.136

Construction: Veloce Ltd v. Northpower Ltd

  

General complaints of poor workmanship are insufficient without some estimate of remediation costs as Northpower found to its cost in a ‘pay now, argue later’ Construction Contracts Act claim; ordered to pay Tauranga engineering sub-contractor Veloce Ltd $270,000 for disputed undergrounding work, part of a Coromandel fibre rollout.

Northpower claims Veloce is owed nothing, alleging a raft of construction faults will cost more than $270,000 to repair.

Infrastructure company Northpower Ltd is head contractor in a Powerco project building a fibre network across Coromandel peninsular.  It farmed out part of the project to civil engineers Veloce.

The District Court was told of multiple complaints about Veloce’s work: trenches not on the correct layline or the correct depth; ducts not properly aligned; and manholes not in the correct location.

Powerco advised Northpower of the rework required.  Northpower forwarded these emails to Veloce.    

When Northpower stopped paying Veloce invoices, legal formalities in the Construction Contracts Act came into play.

The Act is intended to protect sub-contractors’ cash flow, curbing a common commercial practice of head contractors refusing to pay any part of a sub-contractor’s invoice while disputing some minor component of the work done.

The Act imposes a sequential dance for payment disputes: sub-contractors submit an invoice labelled as a ‘Construction Contracts Act payment claim;’ the head contractor counters with a ‘payment schedule’ identifying how much it is willing to pay and an explanation for the difference.

Failure to respond promptly, or properly, means the payment claim is payable immediately without deduction: pay now, argue later.

There had been no valid payment schedule response by Northpower after it received the disputed $270,000 payment claim, Judge Davey ruled.

Northpower merely forwarded to Veloce Powerco’s schedule of required re-work and baldly stated that Northpower owed Veloce nothing.

When Veloce made no progress on the work demanded, Northpower fired it from the job.

Veloce claims some of the work demanded amounts to a variation of the original contract.

Judge Davey ruled Northpower was liable to pay Veloce’s $269,500 invoice immediately.

For a valid ‘payment schedule’ response, Northpower should have quantified what was in dispute.  It was not enough to simply state that cost of making good all the disputed workmanship would exceed the invoiced payment claimed.

Sufficient detail is required for a contractor to identify how much is in dispute, Judge Davey ruled.

Veloce Ltd v. Northpower Ltd – District Court (13.04.26)

26.135

Trustee: Toothill v. Hakaraia

  

Removed as trustee of Hakaraia Trust operating a dairy and drystock farm on Maori land near Mangakino on the western side of Lake Taupo, Vanessa Hakaraia was criticised by the Maori Land Court for her aggressive and combative behaviour, disrupting trust governance.

A high standard of behaviour is required from trustees exercising oversight of commercial entities, otherwise trust beneficiaries suffer, Judge Warren ruled.

Hakaraia Trust is a Te Ture Whenua Maori Act ahu whenua trust.

The court was told Ms Hakaraia was voted in as a trustee in Maori Land Court-supervised elections in November 2025.

Her suitability was immediately challenged; confirmation as trustee approved by the Court only after a judicial settlement conference saw widely-respected lawyer Glenn Toothill put in place as a court-appointed independent trustee with sole authority to liaise with employees and Trust contractors. 

Evidence was given of Ms Hakaraia ignoring this court order; dealing directly with contractors and employees, which included vituperative text exchanges between herself and one trust employee.

Disputes reached a head with both Ms Hakaraia and Mr Toothill applying to the Maori Land Court to have the other removed as trustee.

Ms Hakaraia was removed.

She had ignored court orders.  With trustees jointly and severally liable for trust actions, her behaviour was putting other trustees at personal financial risk, Judge Warren said.

If she does not get things her own way, Ms Hakaraia only knows one way to react, very negatively and on occasions destructively, Judge Warren commented.

Trust decision-making is dysfunctional, with Ms Hakaraia playing a significant part in that dysfunction, he ruled.   

She was removed as trustee, with immediate effect.

Toothill v. Hakaraia – Maori Land Court (13.04.26)

26.134

Ethical Investing: Nazzal v. Guardians of NZ Superannuation

  

The sins of the world are being levied against New Zealand’s $86 billion Superannuation Fund with the High Court ruling it acted ‘unreasonably and unlawfully’ in failing to clearly delineate investment policies necessary to avoid prejudice to New Zealand’s reputation as a responsible world member.

The somewhat Orwellian-named Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation Fund have been engaged in a long-running dialogue with lobby group Palestinian Solidarity Network as it seeks to block any Fund investments in businesses considered complicit in human rights abuses across occupied Palestinian territories.  

Set up in 2001 by then Minster of Finance Sir Michael Cullen, the Fund is intended to smooth costs of future superannuation commitments.

Investment policy is left to Fund Guardians, but the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act requires that investments avoid prejudice to the nation’s reputation.

In the High Court, activists successfully claimed the Fund failed to give proper consideration to their demand that specific named investments be sold.

The court was told lobbying by Palestinian Solidarity saw the Guardians previously exclude five Israeli banks from its investment portfolio in 2021.

In 2024, the Fund refused further requests by Palestinian Solidarity that it divest investments in Airbnb (an $18.2 million investment), Booking.com ($48.5 million), Expedia ($467,000) and Motorola ($123.3 million).

Solidarity said these companies are listed on a database compiled by the UN Commissioner of Human Rights as businesses connected to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

It applied to the High Court for judicial review of Fund investment policies.

Judicial review does not investigate the merits of a decision; it looks at the process by which the decision was made.  

Justice Mount ruled the Fund’s existing investment policies did not set ascertainable benchmarks or standards against which New Zealand’s reputation could be measured.  Standards need not be prescriptive, but they should not imply unconstrained discretion, he said.

There was also a lack of clarity about who will make investment decisions and how and when they will do so, Justice Mount said.

There was evidence of the Guardians progressively re-writing internal policy documents over time, making them less prescriptive, in the face of on-going lobbying by Palestinian Solidarity.   

Justice Mount said Palestinian Solidarity had standing to challenge the Fund’s investment process, ensuring public money is not invested in a way that harms New Zealand’s reputation.

He recommended, as a matter of natural justice, that companies named in future be given an opportunity to respond before any decision to remove them from the Fund’s investment portfolio.

Nazzal v. Guardians of New Zealand Superannuation – High Court (13.04.26)

26.133

Billboard Lease: Go Media v. Wright Barry

  

The economic dispute is about market rent for a billboard sited in a prominent position beside the Mount Maunganui bridge flyover in Tauranga on a lease running to 2038, with Go Media currently charged annual rent of $20,000.  The legal dispute is about alleged chicanery by landowner Wright Barry Family Trust cancelling the current billboard lease to force a new lease with increased annual rental at $100,000.

In the High Court, Justice Andrew imposed an interim injunction allowing rentals to continue temporarily at $20,000.  A full court hearing is needed to resolve Go Media’s claims of misrepresentation by Wright Barry.

The High Court was told Go Media first took up lease rights for the digital billboard in 2018.  The site on Newton Road then operated as a car sales yard.

In 2023, the then owner sold the site to Wright Barry Family Trust, taking ownership subject to Go Media’s existing billboard lease.

Within weeks of assuming ownership, Wright Barry gave notice the billboard lease was cancelled, pointing to a ‘redevelopment’ clause in the billboard lease allowing cancellation should it be in the way of any proposed redevelopment.

Within a month, Go Media was offered a new two year ‘temporary’ lease at $100,000 per annum on grounds there would be a short delay with redevelopment plans.

Go Media stood its ground, claiming there was no genuine redevelopment underway.

Nearly eighteen months later, Wright Barry again gave notice of cancellation; supported this time with notice of planning consent sought for a new building on site and copy of a lease to Hireace as new tenant.

Go Media surrendered rights to its current billboard site following an agreement allowing it rights of first refusal should Wright Barry later have space available for a new billboard.

Evidence was given of Go Media subsequently negotiating directly with Hireace for a slight variation to its planned build, enabling the existing billboard to remain.  Go Media offered Hireace free advertising, part of a ‘contra deal,’ encouraging Hireace’s approval for changes accommodating the existing billboard.

Go Media claims Wright Barry Family Trust is in breach of the Contract and Commercial Law Act and the Fair Trading Act.  It alleges Wright Barry misrepresented, at the time Go Media surrendered its lease, the possibility of Go Media’s existing billboard site remaining available despite Hireace’s site redevelopment.

Go Media says it was told by Shaun Barry that after Hireace’s rebuild ‘there won’t be a metre to spare on the property.’

It alleges Wright Barry trustees deliberately engineered a redevelopment triggering cancellation while knowing the existing billboard could be accommodated.

Go Media is suing to have the original billboard lease reinstated.

Go Media Bacbou Ltd v. Wright Barry Family Trust – High Court (13.04.26)

26.132

Life Interest: Bevin v. Winders

  

Descendants of David Te Au were removed from the record as part of owners of land in Southland and related mutton-bird customary rights after identifying errors on the Maori Land Court record from 1965; as a whangai adoption, son Thomas had no right to inherit and his adoptive father’s will specifically restricted his inheritance to lifetime use of a family holiday home at Colac Bay.

By Maori custom, land held in customary ownership passes to blood descendants.  The Maori Land Court holds records for ownership shares in Maori land.  On death of each part-owner, descendants apply to the Court for recognition as added part owners on proof of their whakapapa links.

A Maori Land Court hearing in February 1965, on death of David Te Au, was told he left five children: four his natural children; the other, Thomas, a son adopted in an informal whangai adoption.

As the law then stood, whangai adoptions were not recognised for land succession.  Despite this rule, Thomas was added to the record as a part-owner, with apparent consent of the other four children.

Sixty years on, this process was challenged.

The Maori Land Court removed Thomas as part-owner.

Confusion in 1965 apparently flowed from wording in their father’s will describing Thomas as ‘adopted.’  The word was used in a colloquial sense; it was an informal whangai adoption, not a formal Adoption Act adoption.

Chief Judge Fox amended the land records using powers in the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act.

The only customary rights inherited by Thomas was a life interest in the Colac Bay dwelling.

Bevin v. Winders – Maori Land Court (8.04.26)

26.131

Relationship Property: 'Darwin v. Garner'

  

By any measure it was an unusual relationship: a 26 year marriage in which the two lived apart for 21 years, coming together as a family most weekends and for holidays.  A later relationship property spat over assets valued at some four million dollars saw a nine year difference between the two as to the date their relationship ended, leading to a disputed variance in value of assets to be divided.

The two met as law students in Auckland during the 1980s.

Names were supressed in the publicly issued Family Court judgment.

The court was told they worked overseas for three years before returning to Auckland in 1995.

He subsequently got a job with a law firm outside Auckland; she preferred to remain.

Over the next two decades, he worked as a law firm partner away from Auckland, visiting Auckland most weekends where their two children stayed with their mother.  She did not return to legal practice.

Assets accumulated from his income included houses at each of their locations, plus a share in a holiday home.  They holidayed as a family, both in New Zealand and overseas.

Evidence was given of the husband paying expenses for both houses, household expenses for his spouse and family in Auckland including education expenses for their children.

She was paid a monthly $800 allowance, stopped when he later learnt through a mutual friend that she was now in paid employment at a business owned by one of her relatives.

Their marriage was dissolved in 2024.

Valuation of relationship property was hampered by differing views as to when their relationship ended.

She said it was 2021; the date her lawyers wrote to her husband formally announcing their marriage was over.

He said it was 2012; when he was firmly committed to living out of Auckland with partnership at a new law firm he shifted to.  Alternatively, it was 2017/18 he said; a time when emails between the two arguing over payment of family expenses saw his spouse signalling that she was looking to finalise their arrangement with a relationship property claim. 

Judge von Keisenberg ruled it was 2018.

Living separately for extended periods, by itself is not evidence of legal ‘separation;’ couples can still be committed to each other and their relationship.

But by 2018, increasingly angry emails containing phrases such as ‘I want you out of my life’ and ‘How do you wish to proceed with the divorce?’ signalled their relationship was over.

The nature of their relationship and continuing financial contributions made by the husband after their 2018 separation complicated relationship property calculations. 

The wife was entitled to a Property (Relationship) Act payment for ‘economic disparity;’ her loss of otherwise potential income arising from her role in primarily caring for their children.  The monetary value of this opportunity cost was assessed at $384,000 after deduction of an allowance for post-separation relationship expenses paid by the husband.

It was agreed property held in family trusts would be treated as if it were relationship property; these assets had been funded from the husband’s earnings: relationship property.

Relationship assets and trust assets were split 50/50; each given full ownership of the property they occupied, with cash adjustments to equalise values.

The husband has to bear any tax consequences of their two family trusts being unravelled, Judge von Keisenberg ruled.

‘Darwin v. Garner’ – Family Court (7.04.26)

26.130