Deadlock: AJ Ritchie No.2 Trust v. Semenoff

  

Removed as general manager of Kings Quarry at Wainui in Auckland following allegations of misconduct and incompetence, Alexander Semenoff blocked appointment of chartered accountant Clinton Rains as a new director leaving the company with no quorum for its board of directors.  A court order was needed to approve temporary appointment of Mr Rains as director, enabling the company to function.

Kings Quarry Ltd is a joint venture company controlled by interests associated with the Semenoff family and Andrew Ritchie’s AJR Group.

Their 2022 shareholders’ agreement entitles each to appoint two directors, with each having a right of veto over the other’s appointments.  The agreement installed Alexander Semenoff as general manager, responsible for quarry operations.  He is also a director.

The High Court was told Mr Semenoff was fired as general manager in July 2025 by Mr Ritchie following allegations that Mr Semenoff had dishonestly claimed work expenses in relation to overseas travel to Brazil and China and further allegations that Mr Semenoff’s behaviour towards staff and Auckland Council had hampered quarry operations.

Mr Semenoff was trespassed from the quarry site.

He subsequently disputed Mr Ritchie’s previous nomination of Mr Rains as a Kings Quarry director.  Mr Rains works for Capital Management Ltd, a company associated with Mr Ritchie.

This veto, coupled with Mr Ritchie’s earlier resignation as a director, meant there was no functioning board in existence for Kings Quarry.   

An urgent High Court hearing saw Mr Rains appointed temporarily as director; necessary to ensure company operations can continue, Justice Wilkinson-Smith said.

If appointment of a new director using rules in their shareholder agreement does not progress, a Companies Act application for a new appointment can proceed, she ruled.

The court was told Alexander Semenoff’s father, also a Kings Quarry director, together with Mr Rains have initiated an independent investigation into allegations of Alexander Semenoff’s misconduct.

AJ Ritchie No.2 Trust v. Semenoff – High Court (30.03.26)

26.118

Fraud: Thorby v. R

  

Dismissing claims by Alister Thorby that much of the $1.8 million he fraudulently diverted from covid-19 health funding was properly spent mobilising pandemic-related Maori community support, the High Court confirmed on appeal his two years eight months imprisonment for fraud.

The court was told Alister Tony James Thorby improperly used covid-19 funding provided by Capital and Coast District Health and Hutt Valley Health boards to: buy a house in Foxton ($386,800); purchase multiple vehicles including a 2022 F-Pace Jaguar ($118,000) and 2022 Fiat motorhome ($215,300); spend at Sky City casino ($146,500); pay for domestic hotels and travel ($43,200); fund overseas travel for himself and two companions ($92,200); plus withdraw cash from ATMs ($30,700).    

He was employed by the two boards on a short-term contract through 2021-22 to arrange staffing and logistics for covid-19 quarantine, paid a salary of $110,000.

Later charged with fraud, it was alleged the boards’ money was misappropriated through payments made to three separate entities set up by Thorby; entities which did not provide the services supposedly paid for.

On appeal, Thorby provided evidence which he said supported his claim that most of the payments were valid covid-19 expenditures; spent on personal equipment and vehicles, funding Maori Warden assistance during the pandemic.

He said the Foxton house was purchased as a covid-19 administration base, the mobile home a roving base.

Justice La Hood said that while Maori Wardens acknowledged ‘use’ of these assets during the pandemic, there was no ongoing ownership after quarantine restrictions ended.

The Foxton house remained in Thorby’s name; now rented out as a private rental.

He retained ownership of the Jaguar and motorhome.

Justice La Hood ruled there were no grounds to support a reduced sentence on appeal.

Full reparation has been ordered.

The trial judge described as aggravating factors the fact Thorby moved quickly on appointment to devise a plan, setting up supposed third-party entities to invoice for services which were not in fact provided and then swiftly created false invoices to collect the funds.  

A Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act restraining order has been imposed on his assets.

Thorby v. R – High Court (30.03.26)

26.117

Negligence: Hawkins v. Dellabarca

  

Phillip Dellabarca’s family was yet to shift into their newly constructed Wellington home when sparks and debris from their neighbour’s work deconstructing a boundary wall damaged the exterior on one side.  It took two court cases to determine whether the damage was merely cosmetic, or required full replacement.

This was no ordinary house.

The exterior consists of Siberian larch weatherboards charred in the Shou Sugi Ban style; work undertaken by Mr Dellabarca himself.

Charring has the effect of hardening the exterior surface, giving timber a longer life.  Within Japanese culture, subsequent weathering encompasses ‘a love and appreciation for the impermanence and imperfections of nature.’

The High Court was told there was no such love and appreciation between the Dellabarcas and their neighbour on Marine Drive in Eastbourne from mid-November 2018 after their neighbour had the sixteen year old son of a local building contractor demolish a concrete wall sited on the neighbour’s side of the boundary line.

Use of an angle grinder to cut through reinforcing rods caused a cascade of sparks and small chunks of concrete to hit the Dellabarcas house.

Bits of debris were imbedded in exterior weatherboards, causing chipping and spotting.

The windows had to be replaced.

A District Court trial ruled neighbours Edward and Susan Hawkins liable in negligence.

Building construction company Black Sheep Construction Ltd, owned by Graeme Hocking, accepted responsibility for the damage caused by Mr Hocking’s son.

All sides appealed to the High Court, arguing over the extent of damage and the amount of compensation.

Neighbours said damage to the one wall was cosmetic only, readily fixed by occasionally oiling the timber.

In the High Court, Justice Isac ruled full replacement is required.

There was expert evidence that Shou Sugi Ban charring is not just aesthetic; it also creates a solid membrane.  Chipping compromised this membrane.  Water damage and fungi infestation could follow.

Aluminium window framing was similarly compromised.

Justice Isac awarded damages of $154,900 as cost of replacement.

The Dellabarcas claimed $245,000.

Hawkins v. Dellabarca – High Court (26.03.26)

26.116

Fiduciary Duty: Matakana Luxury Ltd v. Matakana Sheds Ltd

  

Richard and Sally Kerse claim property developer Laurence Pope improperly gained control of their Auckland accommodation complex, alleging he used confidential and commercially sensitive information to cheat them, buying them out at an undervalue.

Mr Pope strongly denies any wrongdoing.

The High Court upheld a caveat lodged by the Kerses over their former property, now Mr Pope’s Matakana Luxury Villas land in Matakana, north of Auckland, pending a full court hearing.

Circumstances in which Mr Pope’s company became owner of the Kerses’ business as part of a mortgagee sale, at a time when he had offered to save the Kerses’ land and business, require scrutiny Associate Judge Cogswell ruled.

Evidence was given of the Kerses’ proposed Airbnb project in Matakana running into financial difficulty through 2022.  Construction cost overruns plus reduced patronage during the covid-19 pandemic saw their company Matakana Sheds Ltd facing a potential mortgagee sale.

They say Mr Pope appeared on their doorstep as an expert in turning around struggling businesses, offering to help.  They had no previous dealings with him.

Mr Pope was given full access to Matakana Sheds financial information; to assist in negotiations with lenders, the Kerses say.

Judge Cogswell was moved to say that it is difficult to understand the motivation of Mr Pope to assist two strangers in the way that he did.

It is conceivable to characterise his actions as designed to achieve a favourable outcome for himself, at the Kerses’ expense, Judge Cogswell said.

During this time, an independent third party made a conditional offer to buy the Kerses’ business for $4.1 million.  Mr Pope advised against acceptance, recommending a $4.395 million counter-offer.  No deal was done.

The Kerses considered, then declined, Mr Pope’s subsequent conditional offer to buy at $3.6 million, which included a promise that the Kerses could remain on-site as tenants.

They claim Mr Pope then bought their business cheaply, part of a deal cooked up behind their backs as part of a supposed mortgagee sale with mortgages released over the land while the Kerses were still on the hook for the balance of money owed secured creditors.

In particular, they claim it was only through his work as their adviser that Mr Pope became aware that the first mortgagee would release its mortgage on part-payment of $3.6 million.

This information was not passed on to them, they claim.

The Kerses allege Mr Pope has prior dealings with this particular mortgagee.  The mortgagee was not named in the court judgment.

Three months after Matakana Luxury Villas purchase, the Kerses’ tenancy was cancelled.

In the High Court, the Kerses claim Mr Pope improperly used confidential information gained whilst an advisor to Matakana Sheds, in breach of a fiduciary duty owed their business.

They allege collusion between Mr Pope and the mortgagee.

They claim a constructive trust exists over the land sold, to secure damages claimed.

Associate Judge Cogswell ruled a caveat lodged over the land remain until a full court hearing hears the allegations and counter-allegations.

Separately, one of Matakana Shed’s secured creditors also alleges wrongdoing by Mr Pope.

North Homes Ltd, owned by Auckland’s Philip Taylor, held a lower-ranked mortgage over Matakana Shed’s land, securing the balance due on Airbnb villa construction costs.

North Homes claims Mr Pope offered to ensure full payment of the $31,000 it was owed provided North Homes surrendered its security.

It has asked the High Court to reinstate its standing as a secured creditor with rights against the land now owned by Mr Pope’s Matakana Luxury.

North Homes alleges Mr Pope was ‘manipulative,’ making misrepresentations about solvency of the Kerses’ business.

Matakana Luxury Ltd v. Matakana Sheds Ltd – High Court (25.03.26)

26.114

Founder Shareholding: Glass v. Protag Ltd

  

Tension between founder and investors, common to many start-up companies, has surfaced with Tyrel Glass, joint founder of ProTag Ltd, challenging his removal as director following allegations he breached his employment agreement as chief scientific officer.

Protag provides herd management systems using internet-enabled ear tags allowing farmers to monitor health of individual cows.

Mr Glass jointly founded ProTag in 2020 with fellow entrepreneur Baden Parr.

Since then, outside investors have demanded greater management control and increased representation at board level as a condition of further funding.

The High Court was told of a January 2026 board decision to fire Mr Glass.

This followed Mr Glass’ personal grievance claim filed with Employment Relations Authority two months earlier.

In the High Court, Mr Glass challenged ProTag’s response; removing him as director and cancelling a proposed allotment of shares.

Evidence was given of a shareholders agreement signed by founder shareholders stating consequences of becoming a ‘bad leaver:’ deemed resignation as a director and cancellation of rights to founders shares yet to vest.

Mr Glass said that he is still nominally a director while Employment Authority litigation is underway and similarly that any cancellation of his shareholder rights is still on hold.

Evidence was given that he claims to still own 24 per cent of ProTag.

He asked the High Court for a ruling entitling him to remain as director and to share in the next round of ProTag shares to vest.

Justice Johnstone declined to intervene.

The shareholder agreement has a clear purpose, regulating how ProTag will be owned, controlled and managed, he said.

This agreement gives the board power to eject a founder whom, in its view, is no longer providing ProTag with the support it needs, he said.

If it is later decided that Mr Glass should not have been dismissed, damages can be awarded for the value of shares lost, Justice Johnstone ruled.

Glass v. Protag Ltd – High Court (25.03.26)

26.115

Estate: re Estate Melville Haynes

  

Michael Haynes was removed as co-administrator of his late father’s estate and given four weeks to vacate the Tauranga family home after continual stalling on promises to buy the property after his father’s 2023 death.

His sister Lisa Gatland, also an estate executor, wants the estate finalised with net proceeds divided equally between the two siblings as specified in their father’s will.

The High Court was told Mr Haynes was living with their father at the family Papamoa home on Gardens Drive on his death.

Despite Mr Haynes then offering to buy out his sister’s share in the property and his later promises to pay market rent until such time as a buy-out was agreed, nothing happened.

He failed to turn up at two appointments scheduled with estate solicitors to finalise details of his proposed purchase.

Gardens Drive has a market value of between $800,000 and $900,000.

Ms Gatland told the court her brother is not maintaining the property.  He has not paid rates or insurance.

Three years on from their father’s death, Justice Andrew approved an Administration Act application removing Ms Gatland’s brother as co-administrator.

This enables her to list the property for sale; his approval no longer required.

Mr Haynes has consistently delayed taking necessary steps to ensure the efficient and fair administration of the estate, Justice Andrew said.

Mr Haynes did not appear in court to challenge the application.

Ms Gatland’s legal costs can be deducted from Mr Haynes share of the estate on final distribution, Justice Andrew ruled.

re Estate Melville Haynes – High Court (24.03.26)

26.113

Maori Land: re application by Kupa

  

The perceived ‘status discount’ applying to valuation of Maori freehold land justified Mare Kupa’s request that part of his rural subdivision be re-classified as general land; widening the pool of potential buyers, enabling sales to potentially recover at least $700,000 reducing farm debt and avoiding a potential forced sale.

The Maori Land Court was told Mr Kupa faced pressing financial need to raise cash, clearing debt over his farm, inland from Hastings.

In 2021, the court approved subdivision of eight residential sections, carved off from his farm on land held in customary Maori ownership.

It required these sections remain Maori freehold land.

Four years later, Mr Kupa was back before the Maori Land Court.

There had been some interest, but no firm offers to buy.  Buyer feedback was that there was no interest in purchasing residential land designated as Maori freehold land.

Banks would not lend.  Taking security over Maori freehold land leaves lenders with a limited pool of prospective purchasers on any forced sale; sales are limited to blood relatives of current owners.

This restriction is designed to prevent further losses of land held in Maori customary ownership.

Judge Stone approved Mr Kupa’s Te Ture Whenua Maori Act application to change status of half the eight residential sections to that of general land; increasing the sections’ value and widening the pool of potential buyers.

Primary reason is to enable reduction of farm debt, Judge Stone said.

This is one-off, Judge Stone warned.  The court is not likely to entertain any further status changes for Mr Kupa’s Maori freehold sections for debt repayment, he said.

Terms of the court order did not impose any condition that sale proceeds in fact be used to pay down farm debt.

re application by Kupa jnr – Maori Land Court (20.03.26)

26.110

Restraint of Trade: Premavida Ltd v. Walker

  

Acknowledging in the High Court that he was not complying with a restraint of trade agreed on a $950,000 sale of his half share in Hamilton optometrist Rose Optometry, Peter Walker upped the ante by challenging Rose Optometry to sue for damages.

Justice Powell agreed Rose Optometry’s best remedy is damages for any proved financial loss, declining an interim injunction requested by Rose to stop Mr Walker working for a competitor.

The court was told Mr Walker sold his stake in Rose Optometry in 2024.

As is common, terms of sale contained a restraint of trade clause.

Mr Walker promised not to immediately set up a new business within an eight kilometre radius of Rose Optometry’s Lake Road premises in Frankton, poach clients, or work for a competitor.  Four other local firms in Hamilton were named as off-limits.

He later admitted to working one day a week for a named competitor: Total Vision.

Rose Optometry asked for a High Court injunction to stop Mr Walker’s current employment with Total Vision; prohibited before October 2026 by the agreed restraint.

Mr Walker filed in court a written undertaking promising not to poach clients from Rose Optometry prior to October 2026 while declaring he would continue working for Rose’s competitor one day a week.

There was evidence that about 160 clients had transferred from Rose Optometry to Total Vision since Mr Walker started, of which nearly fifty per cent had been seen by Mr Walker.

He told the High Court he had destroyed, or returned to Rose Optometry, all confidential information relevant to these clients.

Given Mr Walker’s promise to the court that he would not further access information regarding Rose Optometry clients until after October 2026, Justice Powell ruled there was no need for the court to intervene.

If Rose Optometry has suffered any financial loss following Mr Walker’s employment by a competitor during the restraint period, it can sue him for damages.

Justice Powell indicated any financial damage was likely to be minimal.

Premavida Ltd v. Walker – High Court (20.03.26)

26.112

Debt Capital: Lam v. Phenix Y Ltd

  

There had been no formal agreement, but business records supported Amy Lam’s claim that payment of $320,000 to her daughter-in-law’s business was not an equity contribution, it was a loan repayable on demand after Amy’s son and daughter-in-law separated.

The High Court was told daughter-in-law Shunyan Ye, also known as Sharon Yip, signed up in August 2022 to buy a superette and Lotto outlet in Albany on Auckland’s North Shore.

Ms Lam and Ms Ye both put in cash; Ms Lam’s contribution of $320,000 sourced from a one year loan she took out from a private money-lender, at a high interest rate.

Ms Ye set up a company to run the superette, Phenix Y Ltd, with each of them listed as a fifty per cent shareholder.

Associate Judge Cogswell ruled there was no evidence that either had provided any equity capital; documentary evidence and financial statements indicated all working capital came from shareholder loans to the company.

If it were equity capital, Ms Lam’s $320,000 would be locked into the company with no right to repayment on demand.

Ms Ye had online access to Ms Lam’s bank account.  Narrations made by Ms Ye in her mother-in-law’s bank account described periodic payments by their company to Ms Lam as ‘shareholder loan repay.’

This supported Ms Lam’s claim that her $320,000 funding was a loan to their company.

WeChat discussions between the two at a time when Ms Lam’s initial one year borowing had to be rolled over provided further evidence that her $320,000 paid to their company was a loan.

Judge Cogswell held Phenix Y Ltd liable to now repay the $320,000 received, less sundry periodic repayments made to date.

If payments to Phenix Y by each shareholder were an equity investment, the norm for a small closely-held company would be to record this fact in a written shareholders agreement setting out shareholder rights.

Lam v. Phenix Y Ltd – High Court (20.03.26)

26.111

Costs: Taber v. Hira Homestead Ltd

  

Obstructive challenges to relationship property lawsuits have a cost; orders to pay a greater contribution towards court-ordered legal fees, with judicial temperament labelling this extra cost as an ‘uplift,’ rather than a penalty.

The High Court ordered Nathan Palmer pay a fifty per cent uplift on usual costs orders after challenging Nicole Taber’s application for interim liquidation of their business, Hira Homestead Homes Ltd.

An interim liquidator was appointed in February 2026, taking control of company assets, after Mr Nathan made it clear he had little interest in sorting out what should happen to their animal boarding business.

Ms Taber and Mr Nathan were in a personal relationship when setting up Homestead Homes as a joint venture company in August 2025.  Their personal relationship ended four months later.

Mr Nathan alleges she walked out on the business, abandoning the assets.

She alleges Mr Nathan has unilaterally taken control; removing her without authority as director and shareholder from the Companies Office record and having her signing authority over the company bank account removed.

There are allegations Mr Nathan has siphoned money from the company bank account into another account he controls.

Challenged about changes made to Companies Office records, Mr Nathan claims Ms Taber did sign the necessary documents, but these have been lost; supposedly taken by Ms Taber, he claims.

In February 2026, Justice Osborne ruled these events made it ‘inevitable’ that an interim liquidator be appointed to take temporary control of the disputed assets.

There was no merit in Mr Nathan’s attempted opposition, he said.

He subsequently ordered Mr Nathan pay Ms Taber a fifty per cent uplift on the standard rate for legal costs awarded successful litigants.

Taber v. Hira Homestead Ltd – High Court (19.03.26)

26.109

Loan: Wang v. Xin

  

He was tricked and then lied to; Mojun Wang stands as an unsecured creditor in Xin Xu’s bankruptcy for a two million dollar debt after Xu misappropriated funds held for investment.

The High Court was told Mr Wang placed two million dollars with Mr Xu for a business to be set up in New Zealand exporting infant food and baby formula to China.

In late 2013, Mr Wang learnt this money had been improperly diverted by Mr Xu.  Instead of setting up a new company as proposed, Mr Xu spent the money on a ten per cent stake in an existing infant food business: Doxcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

When challenged, Mr Xu produced an asset register detailing Doxcon as a company of substance with fixed assets valued at $19.7 million.  This asset register was forged; at best, Doxcon held assets valued at $2.2 million.

Doxcon went into liquidation insolvent in 2015.  The two million dollar investment was lost.     

Evidence was given of a subsequent meeting between Mr Wang and Mr Xu in which Mr Xu blamed Doxcon management for the forgery, promising to recover Mr Wang’s two million dollars.

Mr Wang told the High Court Mr Xu promised to personally make good the loss if steps taken against Doxcon management were unsuccessful.

After receiving nothing, Mr Wang sued.

Mr Xu filed for bankruptcy.

As is the norm, Insolvency Service required sufficient proof that Mr Wang is owed two million dollars before accepting his claim in Mr Xu’s bankruptcy.

Mr Xu did not defend Mr Wang’s High Court application where Justice Anderson ruled Mr Wang is a creditor in Mr Xu’s bankruptcy, owed two million dollars.

Wang v. Xin Xu (a bankrupt) – High Court (19.03.26)

26.108

 

Shareholder Debt: RNM Enterprises v. Prasad

  

Using their RNM Enterprises Ltd company bank account as a personal piggy bank saw Monish Prasad and mother Asha ordered to pay $631,500 after the company went into liquidation insolvent.

Using company cash to meet personal expenses left them with a debt owed the company, recorded in company accounting records as a shareholder current account.

Auckland transport company RNM Enterprises Ltd was forced into liquidation by unpaid creditors in June 2023.

Loss of a major client, difficulty in getting drivers and increasing costs were blamed for the insolvency.

Investigations by RNM Enterprises’ liquidator identified substantial sums of cash borrowed from the company by the two shareholders over a two year period ending March 2023.  This included payments for gym membership, hotel accommodation, movie tickets, monthly Sky subscriptions and credit card payments plus large cash drawings.

These withdrawals amount to borrowings from the company, repayable on demand, Justice Anderson ruled.

Mother and son were ordered to repay $631,591.

They did not appear in court to defend the liquidator’s claim.

RNM Enterprises Ltd v. Prasad – High Court (17.03.26)

26.104

Maori Land Housing: Tupe v. Tua

  

Central to the Maori Land Court case was a dilapidated house, recently demolished.  Deeper undercurrents were about customary rights to ownership of land at Matangirua in Northland, near Whangaroa Harbour.

Judge Isaac ruled current owners were entitled to demolish the house.  He declined an application that the house be rebuilt, as demanded by a descendant of Nau Tupe who built the house three generations ago.

One of the current recorded joint owners, Tupe’s grandson Thomas Tua, told the court the now demolished house was unliveable and a risk to children playing in and around it.  No one had lived on site for years.

The house was demolished in March 2025, with foundations erased.

One month later, Tupe’s great-grandson Tamiti Wiremu Tupe asked the Maori Land Court to order reinstatement of the foundations and flooring together with reconnection of electric cabling to the site.  He alleges demolition was a pre-emptive strike by Thomas Tupe to thwart proposed repairs.

Tamati Tupe told the court he is an engineer, with construction experience.  Removal of foundations means resource consent is now needed for any rebuild.

There was evidence of Tamati occasionally living on site, prior to demolition.

The court was told Tamati Tupe and Thomas Tua are nephews.  Tamati Tupe told the Maori Land Court there had been an error in not recording his customary rights of inheritance, and with it, joint ownership of the disputed property.

Judge Isaac said it is too late to correct the record of ownership.      

Rights of the current recorded owners stem from a 1990 Maori Land Court ownership ruling.

Such orders are conclusive as to ownership, provided there is no challenge within ten years, Judge Isaac said.

Tupe v. Tua – Maori Land Court (17.03.26)

26.107

Trust Distribution: re McAulay-Inui Family Trust

  

Just before her death in 2023, Maureen McAulay changed her will leaving all assets to her family trust, with trustees then left to decide on distribution of her property on death.  Inevitably, her two children then disagreed with trustees’ allocation of their late mother’s assets.  Litigation followed.

Daughter Isa, living in New Zealand as a solo mother with one child, claimed her brother Yusuke’s share should be reduced because of financial assistance he had received during their mother’s lifetime.  The High Court was told Yusuke lives in Japan, with their grandmother.

Before her death, Maureen signed a ‘memorandum of guidance’ for her trustees asking that a cash gift of $35,000 be made to Isa’s son and the balance of her property be divided between her two children after considering their ‘reasonable needs and requirements.’

What amounts to ‘reasonable needs and requirements’ opened up a war of words between the two siblings over what they had already received and what they needed now.

In cash terms, there is a net sum of about $680,000 available for distribution, with the lion’s share potentially going to Ina after allowance by the trustees for cash payments received by Yusuke from his mother during her lifetime.

The court was told Ina objected to no allowance being made for about $168,000 given to Yusuke after sale of an Auckland Beach Haven property, previously owned by their mother’s family trust.

In the High Court, Justice Powell ruled this was not a payment to Yusuke from the trust.

The court was told Yusuke signed the agreement to buy Beach Haven, but title was taken in name of the family trust and the trust paid the purchase price.

It was sold two years later, on completion of renovations paid for by Yusuke.

The $168,000 capital gain on sale was agreed with his mother as payment to Yusuke for his work on renovating the property, Justice Powell ruled.

Justice Powell used Trusts Act powers to approve the trustees proposed equal distribution of trust assets between the two siblings.

Yusuke agreed to repay loans previously received.  The $168,000 Beach Haven capital gain did not have to be repaid.

The $35,000 gift to Ina’s son is to be held in trust until he reaches age eighteen.

re McAulay-Inui Family Trust – High Court (17.03.26)

26.106

Arbitration: Revyre Global v. Tyre Collection Services

  

Leaving machinery on site as leverage to get paid one million dollars in a dispute with a former investor was dismissed by the High Court as selective interpretation by Auckland waste processor Revyre Global of an arbitrator’s award.

If not removed promptly, Daryl Shackleton’s Tyre Collection Services Ltd can dismantle and dispose of the machinery.  Revyre Global Ltd’s controlling shareholder Shaun Zukor fears Tyre Collection might then dump it on the roadside next to its Canterbury Rolleston plant.

This dispute followed a 2024 business deal that went sour.

Revyre is a start-up company planning to chip old tyres into crumb, with this product repurposed.

The High Court was told of a May 2024 deal with Revyre purchasing Tyre Collection’s existing plant and machinery, part-paid by interests associated with Mr Shackleton taking a ten per cent stake in Revyre.

Their business relationship soon collapsed, going to arbitration.

In an interim December 2025 award, the arbitrator stated Revyre was entitled to one million dollar damages for misrepresentation with Tyre Collection and Mr Shackleton both responsible to pay.

In turn, the award stated that Revyre was entitled to dismantle and remove machinery it had purchased, currently on site at Tyre Collection Ltd.

A stand-off followed.

Revyre said it first needed Mr Shackelton to pay the one million dollar interim award, providing cash needed to extract the equipment.

Mr Shackleton said the equipment had to go now; Tyre Collection has a potential buyer for the site, he said.  Failing removal, Revyre’s equipment will be dumped, he said. 

Revyre asked for urgent High Court intervention.

Terms of the arbitrator’s interim award allowed Revyre to set a timeframe within which the equipment had to be removed, Revyre said.

Revyre was attempting to have it both ways, Justice Paulsen ruled.

It pushed for a prompt arbitration ruling claiming it needed to recover its equipment as a matter of critical business necessity for Revyre’s business operations to continue.

Having pushed for, and obtained, an interim arbitration award, Revyre was now stalling on any need to quickly remove the equipment it had purchased and supposedly desperately needed.

It was not appropriate for the High Court to intervene over threats to dump the equipment, Justice Paulsen ruled.

The arbitration award gave Revyre access to Tyre Collection’s site with ‘immediate effect,’ he said.

There was no intention that Tyre Collection be required to keep and maintain the equipment for an indefinite period pending a decision by Revyre for its removal, Justice Paulsen said.

The court was told Tyre Collection is challenging the one million dollar damages award.

Revyre Global Ltd v. Tyre Collection Services Ltd – High Court (17.03.26)

26.105

Trustee: Steedman v. Steedman

  

Holding staunch views regarding Maori sovereignty does not excuse failure to properly act as trustee of a land trust, the Maori Land Court ruled when removing Opae Steedman and Taihi Paul from their positions as trustees of an ahu whenua trust for land near Taihape in the central North Island.

Already under court supervision, they were removed for their role in approving a long-term lease of trust land to interests associated with Mr Steedman while under court orders to not make any significant decisions as trustees without prior court approval.

The ahu whenua trust was established in 1985 to better manage customary Maori landholdings.

Mr Steedman came to be appointed trustee on strength of beneficiaries’ belief that his energy and enthusiasm would advance their economic interests.

Some beneficiaries later complained to the Maori Land Court with allegations of Mr Steedman’s lack of accountability and transparency, lack of leadership and general incompetence.

He was put under court supervision, together with fellow trustee Ms Paul.

At a November 2025 court hearing into Mr Steedman’s ongoing conduct, the Maori Land Court heard for the first time that the two trustees had approved a five year lease of trust land, with a right of renewal, to a second trust associated with Mr Steedman.

Asked to explain, Mr Steedman said this was neither a major decision nor a long-term one.

Judge Warren ruled the lease was a clear contravention of an earlier court order that no major decisions be made without court approval.

Regardless of Mr Steedman’s strong views on Maori sovereignty, this was a serious breach of trustee duties imposed by Te Ture Whenua Maori Act, he said.

Both Mr Steedman and Ms Paul were removed as trustees with immediate effect.

Mr Steedman’s passion is at times seriously misplaced, creating a risk to trust assets, Judge Warren said.

Steedman v. Steedman – Maori Land Court (16.03.26)

26.103