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