Fence: Three Holdings Ltd v. Leggett

  

Auckland’s Herne Bay has some of the most expensive real estate in New Zealand with new neighbours spending two days in court arguing over twenty centimetres added height to a boundary fence on Sentinel Road.

As Judge Clark noted, Kristina Leggett at number 47 Sentinel Road was opposing construction of a fence on her common boundary with Darryl Montgomery’s number 2/49 when his proposed two metre high fence could be built as of right under council rules without need for neighbour’s consent.  It was primarily an argument about where the new fence should be placed and questions of access for contractors, he said.

The District Court was told their differences arose after Ms Leggett’s 2021 purchase of number 47.  Prior to her purchase, Mr Mongomery made it clear to intending buyers that the existing fence was not on the legal boundary, instead sitting inside his property at 2/49.

Subsequently, no agreement could be reached between the two on a replacement boundary fence.  Ms Leggett objected to any increase in height, claiming this would affect her privacy and block light.

Mr Montgomery wanted to increase height of their boundary fence from an existing 1.8 metres to 2.0 metres as part of the rebuild.

When they were in court seeking a Fencing Act enforcement order, with Mr Montgomery having already arranged working drawings and building quotes, Ms Leggatt then offered a compromise at 1.9 metres.

Judge Clark ordered construction of a fifteen metre long two metre high fence along their legal boundary of the type proposed by Mr Montgomery, with Ms Leggett to pay half the cost up to a maximum of $3000.  She must allow fencing contractors access through her property.

Three Holdings Ltd v. Leggett – District Court (14.08.26)

26.231

Trans-Tasman Enforcement: Supermega Market v. Sunnya

  

Found liable by a New South Wales court for ‘knowingly assisting’ a fraudulent scheme to divert business revenue from Australian nutritional products company Sunnya Pty Ltd, Auckland food manufacturer Supermega failed in attempts to block enforcement in New Zealand of Sunnya’s Australian court judgment.

The New South Wales Supreme Court ruled Supermega’s West Auckland director Yi Wu was party to a scheme in which false invoicing of Sunnya exports to China had the effect of diverting company revenue to a Sunnya director’s family company.

Supermega manufactures milk product in New Zealand under contract to Sunnya.  

Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act allows quick-fire enforcement in New Zealand of judgments from Australian courts.  Once registered in New Zealand, an Australian judgment is enforceable as if it were a judgment of a New Zealand court.

In May 2025, Sunnya registered its successful Australian court judgment in New Zealand.

It holds Supermega Market Ltd liable to pay damages for assisting two former Sunnya directors in their scheme, diverting business income from Sunnya.

Australian courts have yet to determine damages payable.

In an unsuccessful challenge to New Zealand registration, Supermega argued the Australian litigation was about trademarks; excluded from trans-Tasman enforcement as ‘immovables,’ it claimed

Land is classified at law as immovable; it cannot be moved from one country to another.

Litigants have similarly argued that intellectual property rights such as patents and trademarks should be treated as ‘immovables,’ since they apply only in the territory where registered.  They cannot be enforced outside the country of registration.

Contrary to labelling used by some manufacturers, there is no such thing as worldwide patent rights or trademark rights.

In the New Zealand High Court, Justice Walker ruled Sunnya’s litigation was not in fact a dispute about trademarks, though trademarks were front and centre in some of the disputed evidence.  It was at heart a dispute about former Sunnya directors’ breach of fiduciary duty and Supermega’s knowing assistance of their breach, she said.

In any event, New Zealand’s Trade Marks Act treats trademarks as personal property, Justice Walker said.  As personal property, they cannot be construed as ‘immovable.’  

Sunnya’s Australian court judgment stands enforceable against Supermega Market in New Zealand.

Supermega Market Ltd v. Sunnya Pty Ltd – High Court (14.08.26)

26.233

Mortgagee Sale: Sood v. ASB

  

High Court dismissed attempts by Ankush and Saloni Sood to block ASB’s mortgagee sale of their Auckland properties with the Bank forcing a sale after discovering it was misled during negotiations intended to partially reduce the Soods’ three million dollar bank debt and refinance the balance.

The Soods had earlier received deposits of $375,000 in what proved to be a failed attempt to achieve a private sale of two properties at a time when the Bank was pressing for their reduction of bank loans eventually exceeding three million dollars.  The Bank belatedly learnt of their earlier contract negotiations and the fact that they had received and spent the $375,000 deposit.

The High Court was told that this purchaser is suing the Soods for recovery of the deposit paid.    

Complicating refinancing negotiations was the fact that ASB’s mortgage was collateralised across three properties owned by the Soods in Auckland suburbs of Bucklands Beach and Pakuranga Heights.

Bank loans were made through 2021 and 2022, with the Soods in financial difficulty within four years.

In October 2025, the Soods sold Bucklands Beach in partial reduction of bank borrowings.

The Bank retained security over two Pakuranga Heights properties.

Evidence was given of the Soods keeping hidden from ASB what turned out to be unsuccessful attempts to sell one or both of the Pakuranga properties, at time when they were attempting to renegotiate bank funding.

In April 2026, ASB gave formal notice of a mortgagee sale.  No mortgage payments had been made for over a year, other than net proceeds from sale of Bucklands Beach.

A little under three months later, the Bank had an unconditional sale at $1.2 million.

Seven days before settlement, the Soods asked the High Court to block the sale.

They alleged ASB failed to take reasonable care to obtain the best price.  They pointed to their earlier sale attempts as proof of market interest at higher prices.

ASB acted properly in its mortgagee sale process, Justice MacGillivray ruled.

The Bank obtained property appraisals from two different real estate firms, undertaking a second marketing programme after the properties were passed in when first offered at auction.

The $1.2 million eventual sale price was within forced sale values assessed by one real estate firm and only $80,000 below the bottom of the range assessed by the second.  

The sale price achieved was what could be reasonably expected from a forced sale in the market at the time, Justice MacGillivray said.

An injunction blocking the sale would prejudice the purchaser while further escalating the Soods’ accumulating debt owed ASB, he said.

Sood v. ASB Bank – High Court (14.08.26)

26.232

Maori Land: Murphy v. Ihaia-Thompson

  

New rules around ‘double-dipping’ in Maori land inheritances following whangai adoptions now limit the ability to inherit from both a birth parent and a whangai parent, overriding past Maori Land Court practice which assumed it was a whangai adoptee’s birthright to retain inheritance rights through their birth parents despite being raised by non-biological parents in a Maori customary whangai adoption.  

Rules in place since 2021 now require proof of iwi or hapu custom allowing double dipping.

Maori Land Court was asked to rule on rights to inherit Maori land following the 2018 death of Coralie Haronga where, amongst her eight children, one was adopted out in an informal whangai adoption and three were formally adopted out in statutory Adoption Act adoptions.

Coralie did not leave a will following her 2018 death.

Default rules governing Maori freehold land meant the property now passed in equal shares to her children.  Adoption status for four of her children created legal doubts over who inherited.

Elder daughter Lorraine had been adopted out in an informal whangai adoption.

Her daughter Ayla Murphy applied to the Maori Land Court to be included as part-owner of her late grandmother’s land, claiming descent through her mother Lorraine.

A preliminary legal question was whether Lorraine herself was entitled to inherit.

Judge Stone ruled daughter Lorraine could not share in ownership of Maori freehold land owned by her mother Coralie; there was insufficient evidence of hapu custom provided to the court as to whether it was past practice to allow whangai adoptees to enjoy customary inheritance rights over birth parents’ land.

With Lorraine having no proved right to inherit, her daughter Ayla similarly had no right to inherit.

The court was told Lorraine has inherited her whangai mother’s land interests.     

Judge Stone ruled the three children adopted out through Adoption Act adoptions could not inherit shares in their birth mother’s land.

Effect of an Adoption Act adoption is to deem adoptive parents to be the child’s parents; any legal relationship to birth parents is cut.

As an exception, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act does allow Adoption Act adoptees to inherit Maori land from a biological parent when their birth siblings, otherwise entitled to inherit, agree to their inclusion.

In this case, the Maori Land Court allowed one of Coralie’s three adopted children to take a share of her birth mother’s land, as agreed by all her birth siblings who were entitled to inherit by right.

The end result: ownership of Coralie Haronga’s freehold Maori land passed to five of her eight children.

Murphy v. Ihaia-Thompson – Maori Land Court (13.08.26)

26.230

Lease: Glenthorne Station v. Canterbury University

  

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

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

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

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

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

A further rent review was required in 2020.

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

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

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

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

26.229

Franchise: Green Acres v. Singh

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As guarantors, they were liable.

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

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

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

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

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

26.228

Defamation: Bakshi v. Gill

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements made were clearly defamatory, she said.

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

Bakshi v. Gill – High Court (7.08.26)

26.227

Family Trust: Nahkle v. Karaka Estate Ltd

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each is being propped up with funding provided by Daniel.

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

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

She and son Daniel are both directors.

Justice Powell ruled liquidation was necessary.

Family members are deadlocked.

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

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

Justice Powell dismissed Daniel’s request for receivership instead.

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

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

26.226

Asset Forfeiture: Commissioner of Police v. Zhao

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26.225

Estate: re Pullar

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Details of his estate were not disclosed.

re Pullar – High Court (6.08.26)

26.223

Marketing: Commerce Commission v. Brand Developers

  

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

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

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

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

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

Brand Developers was also convicted of misleading warranty claims.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26.222

Land Purchase: Maraposa Ltd v. Wang

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maraposa Ltd v. Wang – High Court (6.08.26)

26.224

Injurious Falsehood: Rascals International v. Taylor

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No damages were awarded.

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

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

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

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

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

26.221

Director Duties: Rascals International v. JJK Group

  

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

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

Zuru sells nappies under the Rascal brand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26.220

Bankrupt: BNZ v. Kerr

  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

26.219