Judges frequently chide litigants for failure to follow the rules. You might expect the High Court to be a paragon of virtue when it comes to compliance. You would be wrong. Requests from Hong Kong for evidentiary assistance into alleged fraud by directors Paul Bublitz and Chris Cook lay in court unprocessed for over a year before action was taken.
In June 2021, the Solicitor-General asked on behalf of Hong Kong police for access to court documents relating to a property development on Auckland’s North Shore. Hong Kong investors had provided project funding. They were soon to become wary of Paul Bublitz and Chris Cook who were in charge of the project. Hunter Gills Road Ltd was wound up insolvent in 2013. The liquidator negotiated confidential settlements totalling $312,000, including settlements with an unnamed insurer and an unnamed Hunter Gills director.
Unpaid Hong Kong investors allege Paul Bublitz and Chris Cook were party to a conspiracy to defraud. They laid a complaint with Hong Kong police. As part of its investigations, New Zealand courts were asked to provide details of New Zealand litigation involving the two.
This request for copies of the court record was filed in June 2021. Nothing happened. Follow up requests on progress made a few weeks later and then eight months later again saw no result. One year on, the request for access was finally set down for immediate hearing before the trial judge; three months later, release of the Hunter Gills court record to Hong Kong authorities was approved, over the objections of Mr Bublitz and Mr Cook both of whom deny any wrongdoing.
Release of the court documents is conditional on Hong Kong authorities’ prior written agreement to using this information only in relation to their criminal investigation.
Rosebud Corporate Trustee Ltd v. Bublitz, Cook & Hunter Gills Road Ltd – High Court (6.09.22)
22.158