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