Insolvency: Grant v. Kiwi Hire and Sales

  

Pulling hire equipment from a building site months before an insolvent developer went under negated benefit of the so called ‘running account’ defence, requiring Kiwi Hire and Sales repay $48,000 received in the four months prior to Vijay Holdings liquidation.

Vijay Holdings Ltd signed up in 2019 to build the Nido store in West Auckland, on a fixed price contract: $37.8 million.  There were cost overruns of some seven million dollars, according to the liquidator’s initial report.

The High Court was told Vijay’s unsecured creditors owed $1.8 million will get nothing.

Hire company Kiwi Hire and Sales Ltd disputed liquidator’s demands it return payments received prior to Vijay Holding’s November 2020 liquidation, leaving it to prove as an unsecured creditor.

Companies Act rules require payments received by suppliers in the six months prior to insolvent liquidation be repaid; onus is on the supplier to justify keeping the money.

Special rules apply to payments made by insolvent companies on trade accounts where goods or services have been supplied by businesses on a regular basis with payments typically expected to be settled monthly; so-called ‘running accounts.’

Strict application of the six month rule would see regular suppliers having to repay monthly payments received for up to six months prior to liquidation, with no credit for supplies delivered over that same period.  

The ‘running account’ defence allows suppliers to look at their net position over that six month period.  If payments received exceed value of goods or services supplied in that period, the net difference has to be returned.

Kiwi Hire and Sales supplied hire equipment to Vijay for use on site, billed monthly.

The High Court ruled Kiwi Hire must repay $48,000 received after it removed all its hire equipment from the Nido build site in June 2020, some five months before Vijay Holdings went into liquidation.

There was no on-going business relationship at the time subsequent payments were received; no ‘running account’ existed.  It ended earlier, when Kiwi Hire took back all its equipment.

Grant v. Kiwi Hire and Sales Ltd – High Court (27.02.26)

26.088

Real Estate Commission: Savills v. Burson

  

Real estate commission of $120,000 was at stake with the High Court ruling Savills (NZ) Ltd’s failure to get its agency appointment signed off before introducing a buyer for Burson Family Trust’s Auckland industrial site at Drury meant it could not claim any commission.

Real Estate Agents Act rules prohibit agents suing for commission if they do not have signed authorisation to act as agent; rules enacted to stop interminable arguments about commission on sales of real estate.

The High Court was told Savills agent Henry Mann cold-called a trustee of the Burson Family Trust in late 2023 asking if the Trust was interested in selling its Drury landholding.

Encouraged by the Trust’s response that it would sell, provided it cleared six million dollars net of agent fees, Mr Mann emailed one day later that he had a prospective purchaser.

This email included a Savills agency agreement for signature.

Meeting with Burson trustees three weeks later, after the Christmas/New Year break, Mr Mann presented an offer from Scarlett family’s Aintree Group, together with a hard copy of Savills’ as yet unsigned agency agreement.  Commission rate was reduced to achieve a net six million dollar sale.

Trustees subsequently signed both contracts, after taking legal advice.

Aintree Group later withdrew its conditional offer; the deal did not go ahead.

Mr Mann emailed Burson trustees, acknowledging the property was no longer on the market, offering to assist in any future marketing programme.

Learning some seven months later that Burson Trust had now sold to one of the Scarlett family’s other companies on terms similar to the earlier abandoned contract, Savills sued for commission.

The previously signed agency contract entitled Savills to commission on any sale subsequent to the agency if the sale was to a buyer ‘introduced’ during the agency.

The Scarletts as prospective buyers were introduced before the agency agreement was signed, Associate Judge Sussock said.

Putting forward the first Aintree offer before getting a signed agency contract meant Savills did not ‘introduce’ the eventual buyer during period of the agency, she ruled.

Savills (NZ) Ltd v. Burson – High Court (27.02.26)

26.087

Deadlock: Hamilton v. WA Hamilton Ltd

  

The Sword of Damocles now hangs over their head with High Court ordering liquidation of their family company owning farmland near Hot Water Beach in the Coromandel following more than two decades of hostile bickering between brothers Michael and Errol Hamilton.

A dispute over how the family farm might be divided between the two is now spiralling into a strong possibility the farm will be sold, ending three generations of family ownership.

Known locally as ‘Ponderosa,’ the 490 hectare farm was inherited by the two brothers, held now though their shareholdings in a family company: WA Hamilton Ltd.

The size of their respective ownership stakes is disputed, with legal action needed to reinstate Michael as a director after Errol used a supposed shareholding majority to remove his brother as director in late 2024.

The High Court was told Hamilton Ltd is now a landholding company only.  Michael alone has been paying rates due, with no contribution from Errol.

Each brother farms separate blocks of the company’s land.

Their decades-long dispute centres on plans to subdivide the land, giving each brother separate title over part of the farm.

Michael says equal division should be by value, with survey lines drawn accordingly.  Errol demands equal division by area.

Evidence was given of an earlier 2006 High Court hearing in which the trial judge travelled to the farm and met the brothers together with their lawyers, valuers and surveyors.

A farmgate agreement was hammered out, with notes taken by the judge placed on the court record.

This record stated agreement by the brothers that their land be divided ‘by equal partition.’

Errol says this means division by area.

At their latest High Court hearing, now twenty years on, Errol stated this interpretation was confirmed by a private conversation he had with the judge at the farmgate.

Lawyers who have attended site visits by judges would be surprised that there was any opportunity for a ‘private conversation.’

Michael questioned the veracity of any such conversation, given that the judge’s notes state a need for valuations; needed to ensure equality of value, Michael says.

With the two now again back in the High Court, Associate Judge Sussock ruled putting Hamilton Ltd into liquidation was the most ‘just and equitable’ way to deal with the brothers’ ongoing dispute.

The two have been fighting for years.

Neither has the financial ability to buy out the other.

Ongoing disagreement about what was supposedly agreed twenty years ago means further mediation is unlikely to be successful, Michael said.     

With their company now in liquidation, control passes to court-appointed liquidators.

They have power to negotiate a final settlement between the two.  Failing that, liquidators can sell the farm, splitting net proceeds between the two brothers.

Hamilton v. WA Hamilton Ltd – High Court (27.02.26)

26.090

Director Duties: Strongroom Ltd v. Felhofer

  

Auckland IT professional Peter Felhofer was ordered to pay $494,300 damages on liquidation of his company Strongroom Ltd for breach of directors’ duties, after hiring out Strongroom employees to other businesses he owned, leaving employee tax deduction liabilities with asset-less Strongroom.

The High Court was told Mr Felhofer wound down Strongroom’s business after losing several major clients in 2017.

He then started up several new companies under the brands ‘Craniums’ and ‘The Computer Guys.’  For what was later explained as administrative convenience, he employed staff for these new businesses through Strongroom, now a shell company, using Strongroom’s existing payroll system.

By 2021, Inland Revenue was chasing Strongroom for PAYE, Kiwisaver deductions and student loan repayments supposedly deducted from employee wages but not forwarded to Inland Revenue.

Evidence was given that Mr Felhofer’s related companies notionally reimbursed Strongroom for net wages these related companies paid to staff supposedly on hire from Strongroom.

Strongroom received no reimbursement for employee tax deductions owed Inland Revenue.

This improved cashflow for his related companies, but left Strongroom exposed for unpaid employee taxes.

With Strongroom now in liquidation, liquidators found no assets and a trail of unpaid debts totalling nearly $494,000; almost all this owed Inland Revenue.

Strongman’s accounting records were described as inadequate.  Accounting transactions recorded with Xero remained unreconciled.

Justice Becroft ruled Mr Felhofer failed to comply with multiple Companies Act director duties, including: failing to act in good faith; incurring debts the company could not pay and failing to keep proper accounting records.

Not having related companies agreeing to reimburse Strongroom for employee tax deductions amounted to reckless trading.

Mr Felhofer did not defend the liquidator’s claim.

Strongroom Ltd v. Felhofer – High Court (27.02.26)

26.089

Lease: Avon City Auctions v. Inch Quality

  

It was a chapter of errors: Christchurch dealer Devin Inch was unaware his car yard lease had rolled over automatically for another four years; landlord’s agent David Alexander wanted him out because he had a new tenant, then changed his mind; and then a rent review was miscalculated, with too much rent charged.

It all came to a head with landlord Avon City Auctions Ltd attempting to put Inch’s car dealership, Inch Quality European Ltd, into liquidation for supposedly unpaid rent. 

In the High Court, Associate Judge Lester ruled that the disputed lease was still live and that Inch Quality owed rent, but further legal action was put on hold whilst calculation of overpaid rent was sorted out.

The court was told Inch Quality signed a lease in 2021 for commercial premises on Ferry Road in Christchurch; a two year lease with one four year right of renewal.

Unusually for a commercial lease, Inch Quality did not have to give notice of an intention to take up the four year extension; terms of the lease stated a four year extension happened automatically unless Inch Quality gave notice otherwise.

It didn’t.

Early in the new four year term, Inch Quality vacated its Ferry Road car yard, refusing to pay any more rent.  The old lease was at an end, it claimed.

Judge Lester ruled the lease remained current.

Inch Quality was bound by the four year roll-over, even if owner Devin Inch had not properly understood the lease.

The court was told Avon City had taken steps previously to have Inch Quality surrender its lease, with a new tenant in prospect willing to pay a higher rent.  Nothing was formalised; the lease was not surrendered, leaving Inch Quality remaining liable as tenant.

Avon City subsequently did not cancel Inch Quality’s lease by posting a ‘For Lease’ sign at the site, seeking a new tenant on Inch Quality’s departure, Judge Lester ruled.

Cancellation would have had the effect of removing Inch Quality’s liability for ongoing rent.

Avon City Auctions Ltd v. Inch Quality European Ltd – High Court (24.02.26)

26.086

Insurance: Auckland City v. Local Govt Mutual

  

Some of Auckland City’s building-defect insurance compensation claims were struck out by the High Court following confusion over which lawyers were acting for Lloyds syndicates providing cover.

Being the only solvent party left standing after developers go bust, local authorities like Auckland City have forked out hundreds of millions of dollars over two decades in compensation remediating faulty buildings.   

Auckland City carries insurance cover reimbursing its compensation costs.

In dispute was insurance cover for the 2016-2017 year.

The High Court was told Auckland had several layers of cover for this period, collectively totalling 29 separate underwriters, all but one based overseas.

Legal action has followed insurers’ denial of cover, relying on a ‘weathertightness’ exclusion in their policies.

Insurers claimed all cover, even for non-weathertightness defects, was excluded if there was a weathertightness issue in any building where Council has paid compensation.

A 2022 Napier City Council appeal decision ruled otherwise; a weathertightness exclusion did not exclude claims for non-weathertightness defects. 

A host of Auckland City claims left hanging from the 2016-2017 period suddenly became a live issue.

Some underwriters argued the game was over; delays by Auckland City meant they were no longer liable.

At issue was whether they had been served in time with notice of Auckland City’s legal action.

There was no dispute that three insurers providing primary cover for the 2016-2017 period had been properly served with notice of legal proceedings.

These claims are still under negotiation.

But no proper notice had been given to some insurance syndicates operating out of Lloyds in London, providing a second layer of cover.

The High Court was told of Auckland City’s solicitors Minter Ellison liaising with lawyers acting for the three primary insurers on what turned out to be a mistaken assumption that the primary insurers’ lawyers had authority to act also on behalf of sundry other Lloyds’ syndicates also being sued.

They did not.

Consequently, these Lloyds’ syndicates did not have formal legal notice that they were being sued.

This left Auckland City scrambling.

A High Court rule that writs not served on defendants become stale twelve months after court issue meant that Auckland City insurance claims against some syndicates were now deemed abandoned.

Auckland City’s solicitors told the High Court of their suspicions that lawyers for the primary insurers deliberately delayed clarifying whether they had authority to act for these other syndicates, winding down the twelve month clock.

Justice Lang said there was no evidence to support this.

A closer reading of earlier correspondence would have identified service on a number of Lloyds’ syndicates was an issue, he said.

Auckland City can file new claims against these syndicates, Justice Lang said.

These replacement claims would be based on a different allegation of breach of contract; that is, insurers wrongfully declined Auckland City’s reimbursement claim for non-weathertightness remediations.

Auckland Council v. Local Government Mutual Funds Trustee Ltd - High Court (24.02.26)

26.085

Fraud: Jones v. Police

  

A ‘dislike of being with other offenders’ was Cameron Jones excuse for failing to carry out 200 hours community work, sentenced after a 2020 conviction for theft.  He is now in the company of many offenders, serving a four year term of imprisonment for fraud after using multiple false identities to swindle banks and finance companies, primarily to fund his purchase of Alfa Romeo cars.

The High Court dismissed Jones complaint on appeal of double counting, claiming his four years’ imprisonment included penalty for failing to do community work, itself an earlier penalty.

Evidence was given of Jones architecture degree left unfinished when he left to work for over a decade at a major bank.

Aware of bank processes for granting loans, he perpetrated a series of identity theft scams over a nearly three year period, ending early 2025.

Police obtained a notebook marked with Jones’ fingerprints containing full personal details of some twenty-five people: names, dates of birth, drivers’ licence numbers and some addresses. 

Some of these names were used to create false driver licences and passports, with each carrying Jones’ photo.

The court was told he used false identities on three occasions to take out loans for the purchase of upmarket Alpha Romeos.  Loans were not repaid.

One of the frauds was uncovered only after he received a speeding ticket.

In addition, Jones created false email accounts and fabricated bank account details to get credit cards in false names.

Victims’ losses totalled more than $150,000.  

In the High Court, Justice Boldt dismissed Jones' appeal against his four year sentence.

Jones is now aged 42.

There is nothing in Jones' background or upbringing to explain or to reduce culpability for his criminal behaviour, justifying a reduced sentence, he ruled.

And there was no double counting.

The trial judge had the choice of vacating the earlier un-performed community work sentence and then re-sentencing Jones on the earlier 2020 theft charge, or adding time to Jones' sentence for the subsequent identity frauds.

Either route achieved the same result, Justice Boldt said.

Jones v. Police – High Court (24.02.26)

26.084

Subdivision: Slight v. Mathews

  

Graham Fisher’s continuing control over further subdivision of a Masterton lifestyle subdivision three decades after selling the last lot appears faintly feudal, with the High Court ruling it was not going to rewrite terms of restrictive covenants registered on titles to each lot.

Milford Downs rural subdivision of 23 separate lots was established by Mr Fisher in the 1990s.  Lot sizes were limited by its rural zoning.

In 2014, Bruce and Vicki Mathews purchased what is number nine Milford Downs.

Subsequent relaxation of District Plan rules governing rural lot sizes enabled them to subdivide their ten hectare lot into two five hectare properties; part of their plan to free up capital for retirement, they told the High Court.

Neighbours objected.

Consent was required from all other owners of lots in the subdivision, neighbours claimed.

Wording of restrictive covenants registered on title to each lot requires consent for any subdivision from ‘the registered proprieter.’

Justice La Hood ruled this required consent only from the original registered proprieter, Mr Fisher; not all current owners of properties in the subdivision.

The court was told Mr Fisher did consent to the Mathews planned subdivision.  He was paid a consent fee of $3000, plus $1800 towards his legal costs.    

The plain meaning of the restrictive covenant is that Mr Fisher has full control over further subdivision, Justice La Hood said.

It is not unusual for developers to impose restrictive covenants on new subdivisions to preserve the development’s character as part of a building scheme, he said.

Justice La Hood indicated Mr Fisher’s control over further subdivision expires on his death.

Control does not pass to his estate.

Further subdivision is then governed solely by planning and resource management rules.

Slight v. Mathews – High Court (23.02.26)

26.083

Building Contract: Nelson v. Nook Homes

  

The ‘vision’ expressed in computer-generated images of a pool studio was not mirrored in later plans and specifications, but it was the vision which counted when the High Court ruled Hamilton property owners were entitled to cancel a contract for their $140,000 studio when final design did not match advertising.

Hamilton residents Julie Nelson and Jacqueline Bennion visited prefab builders Nook Homes Ltd after seeing publicity images for its product, a ground-level pool studio nestled attractively at the end of a swimming pool.

The High Court was told of a July 2021 meeting at Nook’s Auckland showroom in which they emphasised the importance of the studio being flush with the ground; their advancing ages and the fact a cousin who visited regularly is wheelchair bound meant that access had to be flat, with no steps.

Nook sales rep’s recollection was solely that of their nephew requiring a wheelchair; he had no recollection that Ms Nelson and Ms Bennion themselves were requiring step-free access.     

The two were sent cost estimates containing multiple images: one being a copy of the ground-level computer generated rendering they had seen previously; a second rendering in which the pool studio and decking appeared to be flush with the ground, but on close inspection were slightly elevated on raised foundations.

Detailed plans and specifications forming part of their October 2021 contract did include raised foundations.

Ms Nelson and Ms Bennion did not become aware of installation requiring foundations until staff came to measure up the site for delivery; construction of their studio in Nook Homes’ Kumeu yard was nearly complete and a $142,000 purchase price plus consulting fees had been paid.

They refused to take delivery.

Discussions ensued.

The possibility of Nook Homes selling their pool studio to another buyer was canvassed, with Nook then constructing a new studio to a different design which could sit flush to the ground on a concrete pad.

Nothing eventuated.

Ms Nelson and Ms Bennion cancelled, demanding repayment of money paid.

In the High Court, Justice Anderson ruled that Nook Homes advertised imagery represented a pool studio could be constructed sitting flush with the ground.

Discussions at the showroom meeting made it clear this was an important consideration for the buyers, inducing them to enter into a build contract.

The strong visual image presented by Nook Homes reasonably led the buyers to view subsequent dealings through a filtered lens, Justice Anderson said.

Their misunderstanding is explicable because of the mindset caused by Nook’s own misrepresentations, she said.

Justice Anderson dismissed Nook Homes claim that an ‘entire agreement’ clause in the build contract negated liability for any potential pre-contract misrepresentation.   

The build contract was stated as superseding all prior agreements, understandings and representations either oral or written.

Contract and Commercial Law Act enables courts to disregard ‘entire agreement’ clauses in consumer contracts where it is fair and reasonable to do so.

It is clear the buyers were relying on Nook Homes’ expertise, Justice Anderson said.  They were sold a pool studio on the basis of an image that would never be realised and this was not made explicit to them before signing the contract, she said.

Ms Nelson and Ms Bennion were awarded $114,100 damages.

Nook Homes Ltd went into liquidation insolvent in December 2025.

They stand as unsecured creditors in the liquidation.

Nelson v. Nook Homes Ltd - High Court (18.02.26)

26.082

Asset Forfeiture: Commissioner of Police v. Worboys

  

Forensic accountants have a new income stream; challenging Police assessments of revenue earned as proceeds of crime.

Auckland-based chartered accountant Tina Payne was hired by cannabis dealer Nathan Worboys to contest Police estimates of his dealing, having admitted growing cannabis for sale since 2011.

He was busted in 2020 when Police were called to his Feilding rural address, responding to a family harm callout.

Police stumbled across more than one thousand cannabis plants, stocks of dried cannabis plus methamphetamine and $840,000 cash.

Liable to forfeiture under Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act were assets to the value of all revenue earned from dealing.

The High Court was told Police estimated he had made $1.6 million; a figure disputed by Worboys.

Ms Payne’s investigation of Worboy’s financial activities assessed an unlawful benefit of some $1.2 million; a figure $400,000 below Police estimates.

With these differing views headed to the High Court for a contested facts hearing, Police then accepted Ms Payne’s figure as being the more accurate.

The High Court approved an agreed out-of-court settlement with Worboys surrendering assets to the value of $1.2 million as proceeds of crime; payment sourced from the $840,000 cash seized earlier, plus $360,000 from sale of his Feilding home.

Commissioner of Police v. Worboys – High Court (17.02.26)

26.081

Bankruptcy: Little v. Nicholls

  

Struck off for misappropriating client funds, Auckland lawyer Aaron Rodney Nicholls was bankrupted by a former client who had $535,000 stolen, proceeds of their 2023 house sale.

Pania and Mark Little were left with a $100,000 payout from the Lawyer’s Fidelity Fund.

In the High Court, Nicholls argued without success that bankruptcy should be refused because the $535,000 amount claimed stolen was not correct, he had not received proper notice of their bankruptcy application and the Littles’ court paperwork did not comply with court filing rules.

Associate judge Gellert ruled the incorrect paperwork was not material; capable of being corrected.

Judge Gellert was sceptical of Nicholl’s complaint he did not receive proper notice.  Substituted service was required after Nicholls did not respond to emails or phone messages.

Nicholls said the bankruptcy application overstated how much was owed the Littles.  No credit had been given for either the $100,000 insurance compensation received or $178,800 paid from his trust account to Littles’ builder constructing their new house, he said.

Regardless, Nicholls owed $535,000 Judge Gellert said.  This total was owed collectively to The Littles, the Lawyers’ Fidelity Fund (having part-compensated the Littles) and other clients of Nicholl’s law firm whose money was used to pay Littles’ builder.

It is for Insolvency Service to sort out exactly who is owed how much, Judge Gellert stated.

The Littles were awarded an increased contribution to their bankruptcy application costs on grounds Nicholls objections had no merit, causing unnecessary delays.

Insolvency Act ranks these costs as a preferential payout on Nicholls’ bankruptcy.

Little v. Nicholls – High Court (16.02.26)

26.080

Housebuild: Burns v. Lewis

  

Parking vehicles to block a concrete pour for foundations at a new build on a site neighbouring their home at Bay Hill subdivision in Wellington’s Island Bay, Maria Burns and Robert Seymour did not help their legal claim that the neighbour’s plans did not comply with subdivision design rules.  If later found not to comply, damages will suffice, the High Court ruled.  Similar cases have seen modest damages awarded; little more than $25,000.

Island Bay Ltd’s subdivision has covenants registered on each of 37 titles requiring consent from Island Bay for all build designs.

William and Stacey Lewis faced objections from future neighbours Maria Burns and Robert Seymour claiming their proposed house plans did not comply with Island Bay’s design guide.

A list of multiple complaints reinforced their primary objections; shading and a loss of privacy, with claims the Lewis’ proposed new build would overlook their kitchen, dining room and outdoor living area.

Attempts were made to accommodate these complaints by having location of the Lewis family’s new home moved two metres further north and rotated slightly further away.

Ms Burns and Mr Seymour sued to block the planned build.

The Lewis family, with their fixed price contract at risk of being cancelled, looked to get work underway.

The High Court was told Mr Seymour used a truck and a ute to block road access for a December 2025 concrete delivery to pour foundations at the Lewis’ building site.  The concrete truck left.

They claim this ‘self-help’ remedy was necessary to preserve the status quo; stability of the site at their shared boundary might be at risk if the concrete had to be drilled out later.   

In the High Court two months later, Justice McHerron ruled there were no grounds to call an immediate halt to the Lewis’ planned build.

They are free to resume construction.

If a later court hearing determines there has been a failure to properly comply with Island Bay’s design guide, damages is an adequate remedy, he ruled.

Justice McHerron pointed out that Island Bay’s design guide is a ‘guide,’ not a set of rules.

The court was told Island Bay had approved the Lewis family’s building design before work commenced.

Burns v. Lewis – High Court (13.02.26)

26.079

Arbitration: Gatfield v. Hinton

  

Court of Appeal ruled new Trust Act powers can force disaffected family trust beneficiaries into mediation and arbitration to settle internal trust disputes, even if they prefer a hearing in open court.

More than a decade on from the 2012 death of Kenneth Gatfield, daughter Gillian together with her niece challenge sale of an estate asset: a family bach at Lake Rotoma in the Rotorua Lakes District.

The court was told his estate was left equally to his five daughters.  Named as executor is Anne Hinton; one of his daughters and a now-retired High Court judge.

Disaffected beneficiaries object to sale of the bach.

In 2022, Ms Hinton as executor sold the bach to two of the other sisters.  They paid $331,000.

No longer having a right of access, the disappointed beneficiaries claim they had an agreement with Ms Hinton as far back as 2013 that part-ownership would be transferred to them.

They sued.

In 2024, the High Court ordered Trusts Act mediation and arbitration, over top of their objections.  They prefer a court hearing, primarily because of concerns that any mediator or arbitrator will not be neutral, swayed by having a High Court judge as one of the parties.

Mediation was not successful.

Disappointed beneficiaries then challenged being forced into the next step: compulsory arbitration.

There are very limited grounds to challenge an arbitrator’s ruling.  An arbitration award can be enforced as if it were a court order.

Ruling for the first time on how new Trusts Act compulsory mediation and arbitration rules might operate, the Court of Appeal said arbitration can be ordered without agreement from all affected beneficiaries.

Arbitration is appropriate in this case, the court said.

Gatfield v. Hinton – Court of Appeal (12.02.26)

26.076

Treaty Settlement: Attorney-General v. Wairau

  

It is not government’s job to referee intra-iwi disputes over allocation of Treaty settlement assets the High Court ruled, ordering Alice Wairau end her occupation of land at Opoutama near Mahia peninsula which she claims should be handed over for use by her hapu Ngai Te Rakato.

A 2016 Treaty settlement with Maori having historical connections to Wairoa in northern Hawkes Bay has seen deep divisions between local Maori about future use of assets transferred as part of the $100 million settlement. 

The settlement agreement names Tatau Tatau as the trust taking ownership of assets transferred in compensation.  Within this Trust, seven different entities represent separate iwi interests as beneficiaries.

The High Court was told Te Rakato is a hapu forming part of one of these entities: Rongomaiwahine Iwi Trust.

For over a decade, members of Te Rakato have used a former school site at Opautama for community outreach programmes, paying rent under an informal lease.

They object to government transferring the school site to Tatau Tatau, in part-payment of the agreed $100 million Treaty settlement, without first acknowledging this land should come under Te Rakato control.

Tatau Tatau has agreed with government a $440,000 transfer value for the school site, refusing to settle until Ms Wairau and her supporters are removed.  Their ongoing informal lease was cancelled by government in March 2025.

They claim deep ancestral links to the site.

Ms Wairau told the High Court Te Rakato suspect Tatau Tatau will use the site for commercial gain, preventing local hapu from continuing use of the land for community benefit.

Doing so would eradicate Te Rakato’s footprint and voice, she says.

She challenged government moves to eject her.

In the High Court, Justice Paulsen gave Ms Wairau seven days to vacate.

As current registered owner, government is entitled to possession of the land, he ruled.

Ms Wairau and her supporters have no legal right of occupation.

Any dispute Te Rakato may have with Tatau Tatau over future use of the school site must be dealt with through dispute resolution procedures in the Tatau and Rongomaiwahine trust deeds, he said.

Government is under no obligation to ‘actively protect’ Te Rakato’s claimed interest, he ruled.

Attorney-General v. Wairau – High Court (12.02.26)

26.078

Trust Deed: Matchitt v. Matchitt

  

Indecision by Maori artist and sculptor Para Matchitt over purpose of a trust to hold his artwork saw his children in court after his 2021 death arguing over control.  They were removed as trustees of his Kia Manaaki Trust with specialists appointed to determine how best to preserve and promote his art.  

Seven months before his death, Mr Matchitt signed a trust deed creating the Kia Manaaki Trust.

Unusually, the deed lacks a detailed purpose clause setting out the Trust’s goals and objectives.  It simply states his children are to benefit, without specifying how they are to benefit.

His four surviving children are named as trustees, together with Hawkes Bay lawyer Andrew Gallie.

The High Court was told daughter Marita envisaged sale of some artwork to fund a building exhibiting his work.  She is against plans to reproduce or commercialise his work without expert guidance, claiming this will devalue and disrespect their father’s work.

She claims artwork owned at time of his death is at risk; uninsured and currently stored in a shed needing repair.

The only Trust asset is a bank account, with a balance of a few hundred dollars.

Another daughter has been paying rates for the shed, along with separate tax and accounting debts owed by Mr Matchitt’s estate. 

Marita’s siblings claim she has been obstructive, failing to attend trustee meetings and unhelpfully blocking transfer of Mr Matchitt’s work to the Trust.  They supposedly fired her as a trustee.     

In the High Court, Justice Churchman ruled trustees’ dysfunctional behaviour called for removal of them all.

A trust deed requirement that all trustees act unanimously meant no decisions could be made about the Trust’s future direction.

Any suggestion that the Trust build a gallery to exhibit Mr Matchitt’s work is unrealistic, he said.  The Trust does not have funds to do so.  A proposed site is on Maori land.  Getting separate title issued by the Maori Land Court for a gallery is problematic.

Trusts Act court appointment of replacement trustees was clouded by the fact it would be an unpaid job; the Trust currently has no income and no assets.

Justice Churchman re-appointed lawyer Andrew Gallie as trustee. In addition, Justice Churchman appointed two art experts as new trustees, John McCormack and Megan Tamati-Quennell; appointed for their familiarity with Para Matchitt’s work.

None are to be paid for their work as trustee.  They are free to resign at any time.

Matchitt v. Matchitt – High Court (12.02.26)

26.077