Tourism: ANZ Sky Tours v. Tourism New Zealand

Tourism New Zealand’s proposed cancellation of Auckland-based ANZ Sky Tours status as an accredited inbound tour operator for Chinese tourists was quashed by the High Court.  Cancellation was a disproportionate response to a commercial dispute between Sky Tours and mainland Chinese travel agent Shanghai Donghu International Travel, Justice Cull ruled.

Donghu complained to Tourism NZ about Sky Tours performance on a nine-day tour commencing early March 2017.  Donghu’s allegations that Sky Tours ‘abandoned’ customers and ‘left them without accommodation’ was described by Justice Cull as extravagant language; the incidents complained of had to be viewed in context.

The High Court was told the tour did not start well on day one; alternative accommodation had to be found when the scheduled Greymouth hotel did not have rooms available.  During a scheduled stopover in Arrowtown on day two, the tour leader went ahead on the tour bus to check accommodation for the next three nights in Queenstown.  The tour bus returned several hours later to pick up the tour party.  Donghu complained Sky Tours had ‘abandoned’ its customers.  Overnight, Donghu arranged for another operator to transport the tour party on the next day’s scheduled trip to Milford Sound.  Sky Tours advised the hotel another operator was now in charge and cancelled its booking for the remaining nights.  Tour members baggage was removed from rooms, whilst the tour party was at Milford Sound.  Sky Tours did not want to be saddled with the bill; previous late payments from Donghu had damaged Sky Tours creditworthiness with the hotel.  Donghu was later to say it intervened in respect of the Milford day trip only and it was intended Sky Tours would then pick up the balance of the tour.  Sky Tours said there had been three prior instances of Donghu cancelling tours, leaving Sky Tours with the cost of unused bookings.  Donghu complained to Tourism NZ alleging Sky Tours was not fit to be accredited as an in-bound tour operator.

In 1999, an inter-government co-operation agreement between New Zealand and the People’s Republic of China set up rules governing organised tours by Chinese nationals.  Tours must be arranged and led by an approved inbound tour operator; each tour party enters New Zealand on a single group visa.  Tourism NZ accredits operators for tours within New Zealand and enforces a published code of conduct.  There are 37 approved tour operators.

Acting on Donghu’s complaint, Tourism NZ recommended Sky Tours’ accreditation be revoked.  This was a disproportionate penalty, Justice Cull ruled.  Sky Tour has eighteen years’ experience in the tourism market.  There had been no previous complaints to Tourism NZ about Sky Tour; other accredited operators had committed 25 breaches or potential breaches of the code in the previous calendar year.  Tourism NZ was ordered to reconsider the facts surrounding Donghu’s complaint and reconsider what penalty (if any) was appropriate.

ANZ Sky Tours Ltd v. Tourism New Zealand – High Court (30.04.19)

19.081

Timeshare: Body Corporate 46051 (Village Resort)

Village Resort timeshare on Taupo’s Lake Terrace has sold for $6.5 million with owners holding ‘fixed weeks’ to receive about $10,000; ‘floating weeks’ $5000.

Village Resort consists of 22 units.  Management told the High Court increasing costs were discouraging timeshare ownership.  Owners defaulting on annual fees were proving difficult to trace. While industry-wide there is still a demand for fixed weeks (which are usually over the Christmas holidays) there is little demand for floating weeks.  Annual levies of $800 to $1000 make it an expensive week’s holiday for many. The lack of value in floating weeks is evidenced by many being offered around New Zealand for sale at zero cost.  The underlying property value can be paid out to existing timeshare owners by cancelling their timeshare unit title structure and having the owners jointly sell. 

Breaking up a timeshare requires a majority vote by timeshare owners and High Court approval under the Unit Titles Act. Timeshare owners lose their contractual rights of occupation, becoming part-owners of the former timeshare property in shares proportionate to their timeshare interest.

At a Village Resort general meeting in October 2018, timeshare owners approved cancellation.  A valuation report valued fixed weeks at twice the value of floating weeks.

Owners of two Village Resort floating weeks objected to High Court approval for cancellation.  Justice Ellis overruled their objections.  All procedural requirements under the Unit Titles Act had been properly followed.  The objecting owners were not prejudiced; their floating weeks which in all likelihood have little economic value will be paid out at about $5000 for each week.  Timeshare owners with annual fees in arrears will have these arrears deducted from their payout.

re: Body Corporate 46051 (Village Resort) – High Court (30.04.19)

19.080

Trademark: Target Australia v. Target New Zealand

Trademark protection is lost if registered branding is not used continuously for a period of three years. Selling via an off-shore website with products couriered to New Zealand does not count as ‘genuine use in the course of trade’ in New Zealand.

When Target Australia challenged advertised use of the word Target coupled with the image of a bullseye target by unrelated company Target New Zealand, its legal threat re-bounded.  Target New Zealand immediately challenged Target Australia’s New Zealand trademark registrations on grounds of lack of use.  The Trade Marks Act gives protection to registered trademarks only if in genuine use. 

Target Australia is part of Wesfarmers group. It has over three hundred department stores in Australia selling clothing and household items.  Customers in New Zealand can purchase Target Australia products on-line.  Target New Zealand sells furniture.

In 1995, Target Australia registered, in New Zealand, trademarks for its name and bullseye logo in relation to bedding, clothing and footwear, amongst other goods.  Nine years later, Target New Zealand registered a similar trademark for furniture and accessories.  Heads butted in May 2015 when Target Australia took exception to Target New Zealand selling bed linen using the Target name and logo.  Target New Zealand was threatened with legal action.  It retaliated.

Justice van Bohemen ruled Target Australia had lost trademark protection through lack of use in New Zealand.  Selling into New Zealand out of an Australian website did not count.  Claims by Target Australia that it also had a New Zealand website presence were dismissed. The court was told Target Australia had negotiated with TradeMe for sale of Target Australia products online in this country.  Sales of Target-branded clothing through TradeMe’s website did not start until early 2016, outside the earlier three-year period Target New Zealand relied on as evidence of no ‘genuine use’.

The High Court was told Target New Zealand moved quickly in July 2015 to pique Target Australia by registering in its name the disputed trademark for categories of goods previously reserved to Target Australia. It now holds the trademark rights, given that Target Australia’s rights lapsed through lack of use.  Target Australia did claim a minor victory.  It retains New Zealand trademark protection in respect of bed linen, having provided proof of ‘genuine use in the course of trade’ with retail sales of bed linen made through Kmart stores in New Zealand. 

Target Australia Pty Ltd v. Target New Zealand Ltd – High Court (30.04.19)

19.083

Tender: English v. Foley

It started as two locals scoping a potential Queenstown development for Hong Kong resident Marc Holtzman.  When Mr Holtzman dropped out, Queenstown builder Wayne Foley and farming consultant Conor English were left arguing over who is entitled to the economic benefit of Laurel Hills development overlooking Shotover River.

After an initial High Court hearing, Associate judge Lester ruled the two at best had a ‘deal to do a deal’ and further evidence was needed to identify who is entitled to the profits.  The court was told Mr English drew to Mr Holtzman’s attention the potential of subdividing Laurel Hills.  Mr Holtzman in turn sought advice from Mr Foley who had just completed a substantial Queenstown home for him.  Mr Foley cautioned against any project requiring local authority consent.  Meanwhile, Mr Conor proceeded to scope the project. With encouragement from Mr Holtzman, he liaised with Mr Foley.  Mr Foley submitted a conditional tender, with Mr Conor overseas at tender closing date in April 2018.  Mr Conor had discussed with Mr Holtzman a tender price of five million dollars with a due diligence period.   

With Mr Holtzman’s withdrawal from the project, Mr Foley said the project was his alone.  He never agreed to enter into a joint venture with Mr Conor, he said.  He had never met him.  Mr Conor argued Mr Foley submitted the tender as agent on his behalf, or failing that, the two were joint venture participants in the Laurel Hills project.  Judge Lester ruled further evidence is needed to establish beneficial ownership of Laurel Hills.

English v. Foley – High Court (30.04.19)

19.082

Overseas Investment: Lochar Estate Ltd v. Donaldson

Attempts to tip-toe around overseas investment rules sees company director Jamie Donaldson facing a $400,000 claim from liquidator of Lochar Estate Ltd.  Overseas shareholders allege what were supposed to be unsecured advances by them to the company was wrongly used by Mr Donaldson to buy Lochar shares.

Plans by entrepreneurs Jamie Donaldson and Owen Jennings to market a central Otago vineyard to Asian interests fell over when Lochar Estate went into receivership in September 2014.  Receivers for FICO Finance Ltd were left with a surplus of some $600,000 after selling off company assets.  This surplus was handed on to Lochar’s liquidator.  Confusion over who owed what to whom followed.

In the High Court, Associate judge Johnston was to describe Lochar’s financial records as shambolic, failing to reflect the situation accurately.  The court was told Lochar agreed in 2010 to purchase an established eighteen-hectare vineyard.  The agreed price was $950,000: $550,000 cash upfront; $400,000 satisfied by the vendors taking 420 shares in Lochar.  In economic terms, the $400,000 was vendor finance; at law the vendors were part-owner of the new business.  The vendors held a put option.  At any time in the next three years they could force the other Lochar shareholders to buy their 420 shares at $400,000.  Aware the vendors were looking to exercise their put option, Mr Donaldson faced a dilemma. Asian investors who had bought into the venture sat with combined shareholdings below 25 per cent, avoiding the need for Overseas Investment Act consent.  If forced to take up further shares through the put option, they would be over the threshold and political approval required.  Responding to Mr Jamieson’s call for further capital, their payments were used to buy out the vendors.

Evidence was given that Mr Donaldson told overseas shareholders that while seeking overseas investment approval their increased equity contributions would be treated as unsecured advances to Lochar Estate and he would temporarily take ownership of the 420 vendor shares.  It is illegal under the Overseas Investment Act to hold shares as nominee for overseas interests so as to evade the need for approval.

Judge Johnston ruled a full trial was needed to resolve who owed what since company financial records could not be assumed accurate.  Overseas shareholders argue Mr Donaldson owes Lochar $400,000 and they are unsecured creditors of the company for the extra ‘equity contributions’ paid in at the time the put option was exercised.

Lochar Estate Ltd v. Donaldson – High Court (29.04.19)

19.079

Avondale Racing: Middeldorp v. Avondale Jockey Club

Twice suspended from Avondale Jockey Club committee following complaints he was not acting in the Club’s best interests, Vince Middeldorp gained a High Court ruling that the committee had no power to suspend.  It was a hollow victory.  Mr Middeldorp was left without a remedy; his own behaviour counted against him and he should pay Jockey Club legal costs, Justice Gordon ruled. 

Sitting on land in west Auckland potentially valued at $250 million, Avondale has struggled financially for the last three decades. Racing industry plans will see the course close in 2024, with Avondale Jockey Club racing at Ellerslie.

The High Court was told Mr Middeldorp has been a member of Avondale since 1982 and on the committee since 2013.  The committee sought advice in 2014 from United Kingdom consultants: Turnberry Consulting.  Its initial report received lukewarm support from the committee; it was strongly opposed by Mr Middeldorp.  Online posts followed.  Under the alias ‘klinger’, these posts criticised the Turnberry proposals and the national association: NZ Throughbred Racing.  Disclosure in blog posts of information confidential to the committee saw suspicion fall on Mr Middeldorp.  He never admitted authorship, until the High Court trial where he acknowledged he was ‘klinger’.

The committee banned Mr Middledorp from committee meetings for a period in November 2016 (after he publically questioned the honesty of a Turnberry consultant) and again in December 2017 (after he sent to Clubmembers ahead of the annual meeting an anonymous ‘letter of concern’ purporting to be from ‘concerned members’.  It was not from members, it was from a single member: Mr Middeldorp).

The High Court later ruled Jockey Club rules did not give the committee power to suspend its members.  Refusing a remedy, Justice Gordon said Mr Middeldorp had not been seriously prejudiced: his livelihood had not been affected; he delayed taking any legal action; and Mr Middeldorp chose to make public what was a confidential move by the committee to temporarily suspend him.

Mr Middeldorp also alleged the committee did not act in good faith when it declined membership applications in 2017 for fourteen applicants.  The High Court was told of committee concerns that the co-ordinated applications were a concerted effort to promote horse trainers into the Club who would then call for a special general meeting to reverse decisions made earlier to close training facilities. Mr Middeldorp had cross-nominated many of the applicants.  He is also a trainer.  Justice Gordon ruled the committee acted properly in writing to each applicant asking for their reasons in wishing to join, then refusing those applications where no reply was received.

Middeldorp v. Avondale Jockey Club Incorporated – High Court (26.04.19)

19.078

OPCA Litigants: Niwa v. Inland Revenue

A new phrase enters the legal lexicon: OPCA litigants.  Labelled as Organised Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument litigants they appear in court arguing they are not on trial since another manifestation of themselves is liable. Judges are getting beyond tolerating such tactics by allowing OPCA litigants their day in court; they are now striking out such claims before trial as an abuse of process and a waste of court resources.

In New Plymouth, Justice Ellis struck out a court filing purporting to be an application for judicial review by one Donald James Niwa challenging Inland Revenue’s successful District Court judgment for payment of income tax arrears.  In court Mr Niwa claims he did not owe any tax.  This liability fell on an individual with a similar name written in capital letters: DONALD NIWA.  This DONALD NIWA was created by the state, he said, and is the only person responsible for debts owed the state.  The Mr Niwa, written in lower case letters, did not sign DONALD NIWA’s application for judicial review; it was ‘signed’ by use of Mr Niwa’s thumb-print.  His application for judicial review was struck out, without a court hearing.

OPCA litigants surfaced in North America last century.  There is no closed list.  In North America they are commonly labelled as de-taxers, freeman, sovereign citizens or members of obscure cults denying the state has any authority over them. In New Zealand, OPCA litigants are frequently Maori claiming their iwi or hapu never submitted to crown sovereignty following the Treaty of Waitangi.  They are often encouraged in this defence by gurus who peddle pseudo-legal nonsense encouraging a split identity defence; arguing that an individual can somehow exist in two separate but related states.  Their ‘real’ self is free of any legal obligations whilst their ‘state-created’ alter ego is the only ‘person’ subject to government authority.

Court hearings often descend into farce as it is unclear which of the two persona is making an appearance and answering questions. Judges dismiss split-person defences. The individual before the court is under its jurisdiction and must obey its rulings. 

In the words of a Canadian judge, OPCA litigants share a critical characteristic: they will honour regulatory, contract, family and other legal obligations if they feel like it.  And typically, they don’t.

Niwa v. Inland Revenue – High Court (17.04.19)

19.077

Financial Abuse: Flavell v. Campbell

The High Court revoked an enduring power of attorney a sister held over her brother’s financial affairs.  She has over sixty convictions for dishonesty spread over two decades.  He has chronic mental illness, with impaired short-term memory.  His bank account was frozen by bank management after an inheritance from his mother began disappearing at an alarming rate, spent gambling at Sky City casino.  Public Trust was given control of his bank account. 

All names were supressed by the High Court, with aliases given for the case name.

In 2015, an inheritance of $203,400 was paid into the brother’s credit union account.  Within one month, over $100,000 had been spent at Sky City.  Knowing his personal circumstances, credit union management froze the account.  The sister, accompanied by her brother, called at credit union offices demanding the account be unfrozen.  She tried to stop management speaking to her brother alone.  She had to be removed by police.  She was subsequently convicted of trespass.  A complaint made to the consumer complaints service operated by Financial Services Complaints Ltd was dismissed.   The credit union was justified in freezing the account, it said.

The court was told the brother then signed an enduring power of attorney giving his sister control over his financial affairs.  The credit union ignored this power of attorney, refusing to hand over her brother’s money.  She sued.  A court-appointed psychiatrist was to later report the brother lacked capacity to manage his own affairs and would have been mentally incapable of understanding the legal effect of granting a power of attorney in favour of his sister. This report came after the sister attempted to stop his brother attending a psychiatric examination.

In court, the brother said his sister was his ‘best friend’ providing help and support for his mental issues.  Revoking the power of attorney, Justice Moore said this does not affect her ability to continue supporting her brother.  But she is not a fit and proper person to manage her brother’s financial affairs, he said.

Flavell v. Campbell – High Court (12.04.19)

19.076

Litigation Funding: Cain v. Mettrick

Litigation funders must disclose their identity.  They cannot hide behind nominees the High Court ruled, following an application by Queenstown Lakes mayor James Boult being sued for alleged Companies Act breaches when director of the Stonewood group. 

Companies in the Stonewood Homes group are in liquidation with unsecured creditors claiming some $27 million.  Liquidators Ernst & Young are suing Mr Boult and former Stonewood managing director Brent Mettrick for $25.47 million alleging breaches of the Companies Act.  Both deny liability.  Ernst & Young are using third party funders; Stonewood has no money to pay for drawn-out litigation, they say.

The High Court was told a company called PLF Services Ltd is putting up the money.  Ultimate owners of PLF are not identifiable from the public record.  The trail ends with a private nominee trust company. The courts have only recently allowed litigation funders into the courts; justified as improving access to justice.  Previous judicial concerns had been that outside funding might lead to an abuse of process; those with a grievance intermeddling in private litigation to settle old scores.

Justice Mander ruled use of nominees to disguise who is the ‘real’ litigation funder again raises concerns about abuse of process. Ernst & Young were ordered to disclose who is behind PLF Services.  If the liquidators do not know, Mr Boult can ask to have PLF removed from the case, Justice Mander ruled.

Cain v. Mettrick – High Court (12.04.19)

19.075

Tax: Holdaway v. Ellwood

As purchasers of a Blenheim farmlet, the Holdaways recovered $42,800 damages for a GST credit denied after vendor David Ellwood failed to tick a box in the contract acknowledging he was GST registered.

In 2017, Mr Ellwood sold his eight hectare property on Waihopai Valley Road to the Holdaways.  With no house on the property, it sold for $335,000 ‘inclusive of GST (if any)’.  On what is a standard form agreement, Mr Ellwood said he was not registered for GST. In fact, he was. After signing, and just prior to settlement, the Holdaways became GST-registered.  Buying from a non-registered vendor would allow then to claim a $42,835 GST credit.  Their GST claim was refused because Mr Ellwood was also registered.  Land sales between GST registered taxpayers are zero-rated.  If the Holdaways had not in fact registered for GST, Mr Ellwood would have been required to account to Inland Revenue for GST on the sale, since he was GST registered.

In the High Court, the Holdaways were awarded damages for the disallowed GST credit and for accountant’s fees sorting out the calculations. Standard form agreements commit vendors to declaring their GST status when a contract is signed; unregistered purchasers have a discretion to later register for GST but are obliged to tell vendors of their changed GST status.  The Holdaways were not penalised for failing to tell Mr Ellwood they had subsequently registered.

Holdaway v. Ellwood – High Court (11.04.19)

19.074

Insider Trading: R. v. Talbot

Fined $12,000 for failing to disclose a ‘relevant interest’ when trading listed securities, former Deloitte partner Mark Stephen Talbot negotiated his way out of prosecution for insider trading. Paying Financial Markets Authority a $150,000 penalty and agreeing to a five year ban from managing any business issuing securities to the public saw Talbot admitting guilt to the ‘relevant interest’ charge with charges of insider trading dropped.

Justice Jagose was underwhelmed by Talbot’s request for leniency having pleaded guilty to the ‘relevant interest’ charge.  A guilty plea could have come much earlier, he said, rather than being used as a bargaining chip for the prize of avoiding an insider trading charge.  

While working part-time as chief financial officer of listed company VMob Ltd, Talbot purchased VMob shares through his company: MST Holdings Ltd.  These transactions were disclosed, as required by securities legislation.  VMob now trades as Plexure.

The High Court was told Talbot also purchased VMob shares for Blumau Finance Ltd, a company owned by his father.  These transactions on behalf of a family member were not disclosed, as required by rules now re-enacted in the Financial Markets Conduct Act.

Talbot was prosecuted under predecessor legislation which set a maximum fine of $30,000.  Current legislation sets a $200,000 maximum.

R. v. Talbot – High Court (9.04.19)

19.073

Director Disqualification: Registrar of Companies v. Blake & Ryan

Currently imprisoned on fraud offences relating to Ponzi fraud BlackfortFX, Lance Jack Ryan is now banned for life from managing a company.  David Blake, his sometime associate now on parole following multiple convictions for managing companies whilst prohibited, is prohibited from managing companies for the next twelve years.  

Ryan’s present prison term followed his orchestration of a Ponzi scheme masquerading as a foreign exchange operation known as BlackfortFX.  He was bankrupt at the time.  The Ponzi scheme netted about $8.4 million.  Victims are likely to get back little over thirty cents in the dollar.  Back in 2005, Ryan was sentenced to three years imprisonment for benefit fraud; collecting some $100,000, using the name Thompson. He has multiple convictions for running a business whilst disqualified.  He has been bankrupted, twice.  When imposing a lifetime ban, Justice Venning said Ryan has been guilty of persistent and on-going dishonest behaviour showing an arrogant disregard for the law and for compliance obligations.

Blake has been bankrupted, three times; the first in 1992.  There is no record of any personal creditors receiving payment out of his bankruptcies. He has multiple convictions for managing businesses whilst prohibited: recruitment franchisor EVP New Zealand Ltd (which went into liquidation owing creditors $286,900); Hygiene Foundation Ltd (owing $700,900 on liquidation); and Q Technology Ltd ($618,500).  Blake describes his expertise as being in sales and sales management.  He joined with Ryan in operation of Hygiene Foundation and Q Technology.  Ryan’s involvement was described in the High Court as that of ‘enforcer’.  Imposing an extended twelve year ban on Blake, Justice Venning said compared with Ryan the sums lost were not at the extreme end and Blake had not been convicted of dishonesty.

The High Court was told Companies Office gets about one thousand complaints a year demanding specific individuals be banned as directors.  Of those complaints, about twenty result in prosecution.  

Registrar of Companies v. Blake & Ryan – High Court (3.04.19)

19.072

Google Ads: NZ Fintech v. Credit Corp Financial Solutions

Online lender Moola alleges illegitimate use of Google Ads by Australian provider Wallet Wizard chasing market share.

Moola, owned by Christchurch-based NZ Fintech Ltd, alleges Wallet Wizard is breaching the Trade Marks Act using ‘Moola’ as an Adword to have Wallet Wizard appear in a sponsored advertisement at the top of Google searches when consumers type in the word Moola.  Fintech registered ‘Moola' as a trademark in 2017.  Wallet Wizard counters that Fintech uses the same tactic; buying ‘wallet wizard’ as an Adword to draw potential consumers to its Moola website.  Both companies provide short-term loans, arranged on-line.  As on-line providers, both want as many eyeballs as possible viewing their offerings.

Google’s advertising model sees providers bidding to buy a place on the opening page of searches.  Whenever a consumer keys in a specific keyword or phrase, Google Ad’s algorithm uses the keyword to call up and rank advertisers paying for that word or phrase.  Consumers do not know how Google’s algorithm operates.  They do not know what specific keywords or phrases individual advertisers purchase.

Wallet Wizard says it cannot be in breach of the Trade Marks Act when buying ‘Moola’ as an Adword.  Consumers do not know what keywords Wallet Wizard purchases to promote its search ranking.  The High Court was told Wallet Wizard’s spend on Moola as an Adword amounted to less than four per cent of its total Adword spend.

Justice Gault refused an interim injunction blocking Wallet Wizard’s Adword use of Moola.  It is for a full trial to determine whether consumers searching online for ‘moola’ would perceive that appearance of Wallet Wizard’s sponsored advertisement was because of their use of that trade-marked word in their search query.  Wallet Wizard says consumers do recognise that businesses pay to get a better Google search ranking, but they do not understand how Google Ads works.

NZ Fintech Ltd v. Credit Corp Financial Solutions Pty Ltd – High Court (2.04.19)

19.071

Constructive Trust: Kumar Trustee Co Ltd v. Chawdrapu

Only after his employee set up in competition did Ajay Kumar demand repayment of a claimed $211,000 loan. There was no loan; details of a loan had been an artifice for the employee to get extra funds when refinancing an informal funding arrangement for an Auckland apartment.

Mr Kumar operated an insurance and mortgage broking business out of his Epsom home: Global Financial Services Ltd.  The High Court was told in 2003 he took under his wing, as a mortgage broker, a recent immigrant from India; Venugopal Chawdrapu. Support extended to having his Kumar Family Trust buy a Sandringham apartment rented by Mr Chawdrapu when threatened with possible eviction following a planned sale by his landlord. Circumstances of this purchase were later subject of disputed High Court evidence.   Mr Kumar said his Trust was the registered owner and Mr Chawdrapu owed $211,000 for his subsequent purchase from the Trust.

Justice Davison ruled Mr Chawdrapu was beneficial owner of the Sandringham apartment from the outset, whilst nominally in occupation as tenant.  A constructive trust operated.  The ‘rent’ paid was above market rates; it covered mortgage payments on a bank loan raised by the Kumar Trust to buy the property.  In addition, Mr Chawdrapu paid rates and body corporate fees levied on the apartment.  Lump sum payments were made in reduction of the mortgage.  This arrangement was consistent with Mr Chawdrapu being the ‘owner’ whilst legal title was held by the Kumar Trust.

When Mr Kumar later agreed to transfer title from Kumar Trust to Mr Chawdrapu, the transaction was recorded in an agreement for sale and purchase as if it were an arms-length transaction at then market price. The Trust was paid sufficient to clear the balance of the bank mortgage.  Evidence was given that the deal was ‘dressed up’ to show a further $211,000 owing to the Kumar Trust for the purchase as a means for Mr Chawdrapu to increase his level of bank borrowings, allowing him further funds for investment.  The High Court was to rule there was no $211,000 debt. It represented Mr Chawdrapu’s ‘equity’ in the Sandringham apartment and was a subterfuge to get further bank funding.

No formal acknowledgement of a $211,000 debt was ever prepared or signed.  Mr Kumar’s trust did not demand payment until five years after title was transferred to Mr Chawdrapu and two years after he left Global Financial Services.  The court was told Mr Kumar said to a Global Financial employee that he would ‘destroy’ Mr Chawdrapu after Mr Chawdrapu went to work for a rival business.

Kumar Trustee Co Ltd v. Chawdrapu – High Court (1.04.19)

19.070

Legal Advice: Johnson v. Canterbury/Westland Standards Cttee

Lawyer Ronald Bruce Johnson was suspended from practice for three months after failing to give full advice to ill-informed trustees of a Samoan family trust as part of a referral from another lawyer who as fellow trustee was selling property to the trust.

The Hunt Family Trust was established in 2009. Mrs Hunt’s home in the Auckland suburb of Grey Lynn was to be sole Trust asset.  Nominated as trustees were Mrs Hunt, her daughter and a trustee company controlled by their then family solicitor, Mr Ed Johnston.  He has since been struck off.  The High Court was told Mrs Hunt and her daughter never sighted a trust deed.  Son Maurice acted as intermediary bringing only the signature page to them for signing. They had never met Mr Ed Johnston.

Two months after the Trust was established, Mr Johnson received from Mr Ed Johnston an email referral asking him to advise the Hunts on a proposed transaction: Mr Ed Johnston was selling to the Hunt Family Trust a property he owned in Ranui, west Auckland.  Mr Johnson was then a salaried partner in a west Auckland law firm.   The stated price of $297,000 was a few thousand dollars below current rating valuation.  Six years later, Mrs Hunt’s son Matthew complained to the Law Society about the advice given.

Justice van Bohemen confirmed a three month suspension from practice.  He ruled Mr Johnson was negligent, having provided inadequate advice.  His duty as legal adviser went beyond explaining the mechanics of a property sale.  Trustees Mrs Hunt and her daughter were unsophisticated and inexperienced in business. The consequences for the Trust of raising a mortgage for the Ranui purchase should have been canvassed. Consideration of how the purchase would benefit the Trust and its beneficiaries should have been discussed. The fact Mrs Hunt’s daughter as trustee expressed discomfort at the meeting about the proposed purchase should have triggered the need for an in-depth discussion lasting beyond a twenty-minute meeting.  Sons Matthew and Maurice also attended the meeting.

The son’s complaint to the Law Society triggered an audit of Mr Johnson’s trust account.  Inspectors found irregularities in its operation.  Accounting records were not kept up to date.  No client funds had been misappropriated.

Johnson v. Canterbury/Westland Standards Committee – High Court (28.03.19)

19.069

Fraud: R. v. Bublitz, McKay & Blackwood

Convicted of fraud after milking government guarantees put in place after the 2008 global financial crisis: Paul Bublitz was sentenced to three years two months imprisonment; Bruce McKay twelve months home detention; and Richard Blackwood nine months home detention. Their fraud cost taxpayers $3.38 million.

With investments in his Hunter Capital Group underwater following the global financial crisis, Bublitz looked to shelter his losses.  The High Court was told of Viaduct Capital, and later Mutual Finance, being used as vehicles to off-load Hunter Capital assets and to provide loans for further property development.  Bublitz held either direct or indirect control over each finance company.  Both had the benefit of a short-term government guarantee; part of the political response to feared bank-runs during the world-wide banking crisis by investors taking cash out of the financial system.

Rules governing the government guarantee tightly restricted related-party transactions.  The High Court was told of elaborate ruses used by Bublitz to hide his financial interest in Viaduct.  Bublitz used a nominee purchaser to gain control of Viaduct, hiding his involvement. Within months of promising Treasury he would not funnel Mutual Finance cash into Viaduct, he did exactly that. Cash was siphoned out quickly over a five month period in 2010.  Issuing a misleading prospectus to investors and misleading Treasury amounted to fraud. Prosecutors likened Bublitz’ actions to use of the two finance companies as a private piggy bank. 

Government coughed up nine million dollars to compensate Mutual Finance investors.  After recoveries, the final cost was $3.38 million.

Justice Toogood described Bublitz as prime mover and instigator of the fraud, with McKay and Blackwood acting under his direction. Sentences were reduced to reflect personal and financial costs incurred by the three having to face a second trial after the first trial was aborted.  After sitting for nine months, the trial had to be restarted because of a prosecution failure to disclose relevant documents from the outset.

R. v. Bublitz, McKay, Blackwood – High Court (27.03.19)

19.068

Post judgment note: Blackwood's conviction was overturned by the Court of Appeal in August 2019. There was no evidence Blackwood had seen the government guarantee or knew of its terms.

Forestry Rights: OHL Ltd v. Peria Charitable Trust

Owning forestry land near Kaitaia, Maori-owned Peria Charitable Trust is accused of selling the same cutting rights twice over.  A Mark Hotchin controlled company’s claim for damages has been stalled in the High Court; Peria says it is owed damages.

The High Court was told Peria first granted rights to plant and harvest trees on its land back in 1996.  These forestry rights have since passed through a string of owners including Elders Finance and Hanover Finance.  In 2010, they wound up on the books of OHL Ltd as part of a Companies Act amalgamation of sundry Hanover group companies.  Mark Hotchin controls OHL Ltd.  In 2016, Peria offered to buy out OHL’s forestry right for $100,000. The offer was later withdrawn. Peria then sold cutting rights elsewhere, claiming the Companies Act amalgamation did not transfer any forestry rights to OHL.

In the High Court, Associate judge Andrew ruled OHL did own the forestry right; it passed  across as part of the amalgamation.  OHL was refused judgment in its favour.  OHL’s claim for damages has to be heard in conjunction with Peria’s counter claim, he said.

Peria alleges it is owed damages because OHL failed to perform its part of the contract when holding the forestry right by failing: to pay rates due; maintain the woodlot and boundary fencing; and ensure proper upkeep of roads, bridges, culverts and firebreaks.

OHL Ltd v. Peria Charitable Trust – High Court (27.03.19)

19.067

Fraud: Acacia Motorhomes Ltd v. Lyn Doc Com Ltd

Facing a seven million dollar penalty for GST and unpaid duty following a customs fraud, Auckland-based vehicle importer Acacia Motorhomes sued customs agent Lyn Doc Com Ltd claiming it should bear the cost.  Lyn Doc says it is an innocent victim of a double-invoicing fraud and cannot be required to check the accuracy of all documents submitted to Customs for import clearance.  The case should go to trial, the High Court ruled. 

The High Court was told a company called Seabrook International Ltd defrauded customs with a double invoicing scam.  Seabrook was briefly registered on the New Zealand companies register: from June 2013 to December 2014.  Director and shareholder, Cosette Mirela Bekkers, variously filed contact addresses for Auckland and London.  The company’s only annual companies office return ever filed was submitted from an address in Belgium.  Evidence was given that Seabrook acted as shipping agent for Acacia Motorhomes Ltd.   Seabrook invoiced Acacia Motorhomes for GST and customs duty calculated on the invoice price paid by Acacia for its off-shore purchase of vehicles. It is alleged Seabrook then sent false documents to Lyn Doc, stating a lower purchase price which was then used for calculating GST and duty payable.  Lyn Doc, based in Tauranga, was processing paperwork for vehicles unloaded in Auckland. Lyn Doc charged fees of $100 for each customs clearance, plus $35 for biosecurity clearance.  Seabrook is alleged to have pocketed the difference between payment received from Acacia for import duties and the duties actually paid.

Lyn Doc said it owed no duty of care to Acacia Motorhomes.  It had no dealings with company; it merely acted on instructions from Seabrook, Acacia’s agent.  Associate judge Andrew ruled a full trial is required.  Allegations that Seabrook payments were made in cash, bypassing Lyn Doc’s usual deferred payment arrangements with Customs could raise suggestions not all was above board, Judge Andrew ruled.  Questions of whether a duty was owed and if owed, breached, should go to a full trial, he said.  Lynne Panettiere, controlling shareholder of Lyn Doc, is also facing allegations she personally is liable for negligence and is in breach of the Fair Trading Act. She denies all claims. Holding customs agents liable for double-invoicing scams perpetrated by others would impose an intolerable burden on the industry, she said.  They cannot be expected to cross-check the accuracy of all documents processed as part of import clearances.

Acacia Motorhomes Ltd v. Lyn Doc Com Ltd – High Court (26.03.19)

19.066

Leaky Homes: Roberts v. Jules Consultancy Ltd

Property manager Jules Consultancy Ltd breached the Fair Trading Act when failing to make full disclosure to potential purchaser Michael Roberts about weathertightness of a Sirocco apartment in central Wellington.  In addition, Jules Leloir, as owner-operator of Jules Consultancy, was held personally liable  

Completed in 1999, the eleven storey Sirocco apartments showed signs of water ingress as early as 2003.  Ms Leloir took over as body corporate manager in 2007, trading through her company Jules Consultancy Ltd.

The High Court was told Mr Roberts agreed in 2014 to buy a Sirocco apartment for $397,000.  His contract was conditional on finance and a satisfactory council LIM report.  Lawyers followed up on a LIM notation which disclosed potential weathertightness issues at Sirocco, recommending potential purchasers contact Sirocco’s body corporate. Mr Roberts said Ms Leloir, when contacted by his lawyer, said weathertightness issues related only to walkways and this had been rectified.  Mr Roberts’ purchase was declared unconditional.  In the previous twelve months, the body corporate had been discussing ongoing problems of water ingress into a number of apartments. This was not disclosed to Mr Roberts. A subsequent building report recommended a complete re-clad for Sirocco.

Justice Thomas ruled both Jules Consultancy Ltd and Ms Leloir were in breach of the Fair Trading Act.  When answering, Ms Leloir had information that would lead a reasonable person to believe Sirocco suffered from weathertightness problems extending beyond walkways, Her Honour said.  A partial answer was misleading.

The High Court was asked to rule on liability only. Damages were left for later calculation. Mr Roberts says he is potentially out of pocket $468,000 for repair and re-cladding costs.
Roberts v. Jules Consultancy Ltd – High Court (25.03.19)

19.064

Family Arrangement: Huljich v. Huljich

As loving sons, Huljich brothers drew on the $80 million generated from their 1995 sale of Best Corporation to support mother Elizabeth.  Her claims to have been tricked by sons Christopher and Michael were dismissed in the High Court.  Justice Venning described her claims as frivolous and vexatious.  She was ordered to pay her two sons full legal costs of $605,800, an unusual step since winning litigants normally are awarded only a portion of legal costs.

Canvassing evidence given in the week-long trial, Justice Venning said her claims were hopeless, lacking legal merit.  He was particularly critical of fraud allegations made against eldest son Christopher and youngest son Michael with no evidence of fraud ever produced.

The High Court was told of an informal agreement in the 1980s within the Huljich family that sons Christopher, Michael and Paul would financially assist their parents. Matriarch Elizabeth was subsequently funded for regular holidays to Australia, new cars and some renovations to her home.  Mortgages on both her home and investment properties she owned were cleared. Accommodation rentals were also paid for one of Elizabeth’s relatives in financial distress.  At a time when Christopher and Michael were facing a liquidity crisis, in part because Paul had drawn down more than his entitlement from Best Corporation sale they said, Elizabeth assisted with temporary financing.   Paul was facing legal action for unpaid legal fees after an unsuccessful court case in America.  In 1997, bank accounts receiving net proceeds of Best Corporation sale were almost one million dollars overdrawn.  Elizabeth allowed properties she owned personally be used as collateral for temporary banking facilities available for her sons.  The informal nature of this business relationship resulted in a sharp divide within the family: Christopher and Michael on one side; Elizabeth and middle son Paul on the other.  Elizabeth sued sons Christopher and Michael with a long list of complaints: primarily she claimed they owed her money and were in breach of a binding contract promising her financial support; and secondly that son Paul had been hard done by.

There was never any binding legal agreement, Justice Venning ruled.  There was no certainty as to either the terms of any agreement or who were the parties. Promised financial support from Christopher and Michael was an informal family arrangement, unenforceable at law. 

Evidence was given that before Elizabeth sued, Christopher offered to pay the cost of an audit of all family financial dealings and to have any dispute go to arbitration.  When Elizabeth did file legal proceedings, Christopher immediately offered to pay Elizabeth what she demanded, while denying all her claims. This would keep the family name out of the courts.  She did not take up the offer, later adding further claims.  She went public with a media interview.  Attempts at mediation failed.  Elizabeth refused to attend a reconvened mediation.  Multiple offers to settle were all refused.

After hearing the evidence at trial, Justice Venning ruled there was no substance to Elizabeth’s claims against Christopher and Michael.  They did not owe her money.  Accounting evidence established that Christopher and Michael repaid more than they had drawn down on the banking facility guaranteed by their mother.  Paul still owed his mother $268,300, money drawn down, not repaid.  In addition, accounting evidence established Elizabeth still owed Christopher $160,000 promised reimbursement for house renovations.  Christopher had never demanded payment from his mother.

Ordering Elizabeth pay in full the legal costs incurred by Christopher and Michael, Justice Venning said court resources are scarce.  Frivolous and vexatious legal claims not only impact on those having to defend the claims but also draw on scarce court resources, he said.

Huljich v. Huljich – High Court (25.03.19 & 20.12.18)

19.065

Overseas Investment: Land Information v. Agria

First legal action for breach of Overseas Investment Act ‘good character’ rules saw the High Court approve negotiated penalties of $100,000 against Agria Singapore and $120,000 against Agria executive chairman Lai Guanglin following Mr Lai’s run-in with the US Securities Exchange Commission for alleged share price manipulation.

In 2009, Cayman Island-registered Agria Corporation was cleared to buy into New Zealand-based PGG Wrightson Ltd. Political approval was required under the Overseas Investment Act because of the breadth of Wrightson’s land holdings. The Act requires individuals in control of overseas interests be of good character.  In part, this is intended to keep out any person likely to bring New Zealand into disrepute.  

The High Court was told Agria ‘fessed up to a breach of the Act’s good character requirement when applying for clearance to make further investments in New Zealand.  It disclosed Mr Lai had been under investigation by US securities regulators.  US regulators alleged Agria Corporation concealed losses through fraudulent accounting; materially underreporting losses and inflating value of shares acquired. Mr Lai was alleged to have manipulated Agria share prices through publication of misleading press releases.  Both Agria Corporation and Mr Lai paid fines to US regulators, without admitting liability.

Justice Gordon agreed fines payable to New Zealand authorities be discounted to recognise their early admission of liability, co-operation provided and steps taken to promote future compliance.  Mr Lai agreed to stand down from the Wrightson board until at least December 2023.  Agria Singapore committed to ensuring Wrightson board’s audit committee have a majority of independent directors.

Land Information New Zealand v. Agria (Singapore) Pte Ltd – High Court (21.03.19)

19.063

Conversion: Superthriiler Jet Sprint v. Coggan

Mark Coggan, joint owner of Superthriller Jet Sprint operating out of Manukau in south Auckland, has been ordered to hand over all Superthriller property in his possession following a bust up between owners.

Fellow investors Teresa Ciprian and Danny Chan allege Mr Coggan is liable in conversion, refusing to surrender company plans, dies, moulds and casts.  Superthriller promises thrills and spills racing purpose-built jet boats on a circuit at Colin Dale Motorsport Park.  Mr Coggan has expertise manufacturing propulsion units for jet boats.  The High Court was told he was joined in 2006 by Ms Ciprian and Mr Chan as investors in Superthriller.  The two put in $600,000 as working capital; Mr Coggan put up intellectual capital of equivalent amount and agreed to a restraint of trade, promising not to set up in competition.  In early 2018, Mr Coggan wanted out.  He offered to sell his one-third stake in the business at $32.60 per share; valuing his one-third interest in Superthriller at $656,000.  His fellow investors countered; offering $4.60 per share.  No deal.  Mr Coggan resigned as director.

Ms Ciprian and Mr Chan allege Mr Coggan has failed to hand over Superthriller property.  He is being sued for conversion; an allegation Superthriller is being denied access to its own assets.

They also allege Mr Coggan misrepresented cost of developing a replacement propulsion unit for Superthriller craft.  Damages are claimed.

Claims of conversion and misrepresentation are yet to go to a full hearing.  In the interim, Justice Toogood ordered Mr Coggan hand over company assets in his possession.  Mr Coggan says he is owed money by Superthriller.

Superthriller Jet Sprint Ltd v. Coggan – High Court (21.03.19)

19.062

Capital + Merchant: Gibson v. Official Assignee

Insolvency Service has to bear the cost of a potential $2.41 million GST lability arising from its $18.5 million settlement with auditors of failed finance company Capital + Merchant.  Insolvency Service cannot dip into funds otherwise payable to investors, the High Court ruled. 

Finance company Capital + Merchant went into liquidation a decade ago.  As liquidator, Insolvency Service negotiated an out-of-court settlement with auditors BDO Spicers for alleged negligence.  Much of this money went to Capital + Merchant’s secured creditors. Sitting on the sideline was insolvency specialist Korda Mentha acting on behalf of some 7500 retail investors demanding repayment.  To speed up payment to investors, Korda Mentha cut a deal with Insolvency Service in 2015; $2.34 million could be retained by Insolvency Service for payment of costs and expenses with the balance handed over to Korda Mentha.  The High Court was told anticipated payments to secured creditors proved to be less than expected, leaving Insolvency Service holding an unexpected pot of some two million dollars.  Learning that Inland Revenue is demanding $2.41 million for GST on the out-of-court settlement, Insolvency Service refused to hand over the surplus.

Justice Jagose ruled Korda Mentha is entitled to the money.  The two had agreed how much Insolvency Service could retain.  It was not entitled to a ‘second bite at the cherry’ holding money back to cover its own negligence.  The High Court was told Insolvency Service could not claim it made a mistake when negotiating the 2015 agreement with Korda Mentha.  It had assumed Capital + Merchant was not GST registered since it was providing financial services.  In fact it was GST registered; a reflection of its mix of business activities. The out-of-court settlement with auditors described the agreed payment as ‘inclusive of GST, if any’.  This should have alerted Insolvency Service of potential GST liability.

Insolvency Service is currently disputing with Inland Revenue whether at law GST is payable on the settlement with Capital + Merchant auditors.

Gibson v. Officlal Assignee - High Court (21.03.19)

19.061

Fair Trading: Ballance Agri-Nutrients v. Quin Environmentals

Quin Environmentals breached the Fair Trading Act by linking its superphosphate fertiiser to Fertmark accreditation when it did not comply with testing specified to satisfy that accreditation, competitor Ballance alleges.

In the 1990s, Federated Farmers established the Fertmark scheme to assist farmers in judging quality of farm products offered for sale.  In respect of superphosphate fertiliser, product Fertmark-labelled as RPR (reactive phosphate rock for direct application) must satisfy a specified solubility test.  The test is carried out with product in rock format, not in the granulated form as applied to pasture.  It is generally accepted that this test is outdated, but it remains the current test for Fertmark RPR branding.

Ballance Agri-Nutrients Ltd objected when competitor Quin Environmentals (NZ) Ltd advertised 15,000 tones of superphosphate imported from Algeria as simply ‘the best all-round RPR in the world’.  No direct mention was made of Fertmark.  Ballance said the implication for farmers was clear; the product was Fertmark compliant.  It did not comply with the specified RPR Fertmark test. It did comply with what Dr Bert Qunin of Quin Environmentals described as ‘straight RPR’ being a modified solubility test he considered more appropriate.

Justice Fitzgerald said it is not for the court to determine the efficacy of solubility tests, but to rule on whether a false and misleading impression is given when the Quin advertised product does not comply with the Fertmark RPR testing protocol.  It was potentially a breach of the Fair Trading Act to market the Quin product as ‘RPR’ without explaining this is not RPR as defined by the Fertmark standard. An interim injunction was issued to block future RPR advertising by Quin Environmentals unless accompanied by a suitable qualification.

Whether Quin Environmentals was in breach of the Fair Trading Act requires a full court hearing.

Ballance Agri-Nutrients Ltd v. Quin Environmentals (NZ) Ltd – High Court (19.03.19)

19.060

Relationship Property: Oldfield v. Oldfield

With trustees of Oldfield Family Trust estranged and deadlocked, the High Court removed husband and wife appointing New Zealand Guardian Trust as trustee in their place.

Hamilton-based Oldfield Trust owns substantial assets: a home in Lakeview Crescent; a holiday home in Raglan; a controlling interest in Demolition Traders Ltd and some $1.3 million in cash.  Spouses: Dorothy and David Oldfield are trustees.  They separated in in 2015, after 44 years together. The High Court was told their relationship has become increasingly acrimonious and unpleasant.  David occupies the Lakeview home rent free; Dorothy has been lodging with their daughter.  Dorothy alleges her husband is obstructing attempts to release trust assets for use by other members of the family.  Trust resolutions require agreement of both.  Board appointments to Demolition Traders similarly require mutual agreement.  Mediation was unsuccessful.  They are deadlocked.

Four years after they separated and with a Family Court relationship property hearing over six months away, Dorothy sought High Court assistance to free up Trust assets.

Justice van Bohemen removed both as trustees of their family trust, appointing NZ Guardian Trust as sole trustee.  The fundamental breakdown of trust between the two meant neither could be relied on to act impartially, he said.  NZ Guardian Trust was instructed to use the Trust’s free cash to buy a replacement home for Mrs Oldfield and to advance trust money to each of them to meet outstanding debts.

Oldfield v. Oldfield – High Court (19.03.19)

19.059

Insolvency: re Sandford

With unsecured debts of $566,800 and declared assets of only $3000, John David Sandford’s part-payment Insolvency Act proposal was refused High Court approval.  Attempts to free his elderly spouse from joint debts at the same time was fatal to his personal proposal.

Mr Sandford offered to pay creditors ten cents in the dollar in full satisfaction.  Creditors owed 95 per cent of his unsecured debt by value voted in favour; ANZ Bank and Diners Club voted against.  With High Court approval, a part-payment scheme is binding on all creditors, including those voting against.

Associate judge Smith refused approval.  The part-payment scheme was personal to Mr Sandford and his debts.  His personal proposal could not extinguish debts owed by others, regardless of how many creditors voted in favour.  It made no difference that those creditors agreeing to part-payment indicated informally after the vote that they would not chase his wife for full payment where there was joint liability.  Seeking to discharge her joint liability as part of her husband’s proposal was not possible.  Mr Sandford can start again and offer a fresh part-payment proposal to creditors covering liability for his debts alone, Judge Smith said.

re Sandford – High Court (15.03.19)

19.058

Intellectual Property: Solar Bright v. Martin

Established to commercialise ice-warning devices for roads, Christchurch-based Solar Bright recovered company assets from founders Patrick and Nicola Martin after a High Court ruling intellectual property was improperly stripped out of the company.

In court, the PATeye and DATAeye inventions were described as ‘the brain children’ of Mr Martin.  He took out patents and trademarks to protect his inventions. Solar Bright Ltd shareholders put in over $2.3 million over four years to commercialise the product.  Patents and trademarks were transferred to the company. Revenue flows were disappointing; between $20,000 - $40,0000 yearly.

Mr Martin resigned from Solar’s board in late 2017. Three weeks later, his spouse Nicola Martin signed a document as managing director of Solar Bright transferring all company intellectual property back to her husband.  No price was put on the value of intellectual property transferred.  Ms Martin said it was difficult to value, given product was still in research and development phase.  And in any event, both she and her husband were owed considerable sums in unpaid wages together with un-reimbursed expenses incurred in the company’s name, she said.

Solar Bright’s shareholders approved a Companies Act resolution nullifying the sale: transactions with directors and those associated with directors can be set aside within three months if the deal was not at fair value.

Justice Osborne ruled it was for the Martins to prove a fair price was paid.  They failed to do so, he said.  The document evidencing the asset transfer did not state any price.  The Martins claim to a set off against unpaid wages did not stand up given they were suing in the Employment Relations Authority for backpay.  And even if the intellectual property was valued at book value of $110,000, their claim for unpaid wages was less than that figure.

Both were ordered to deliver up all Solar Bright property in their possession including storage devices and documents, to surrender domain names and to disclose access passwords.  Mr Martin was ordered to re-transfer patent rights.

Solar Bright Ltd v. Martin – High Court (15.03.19)

19.057