THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND IN RECEIVERSHIP) [2013] NZHC 1368

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND IN RECEIVERSHIP) [2013] NZHC 1368 [11 June 2013]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDCHRISTCHURCH REGISTRYCIV-2010-409-000123[2013] NZHC 1368UNDER Section 266 of the Companies Act 1993BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUEPlaintiffAND PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (INLIQUIDATION AND INRECEIVERSHIP)DefendantAND ROBERT BRUCE WALKERApplicantAND THE NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 25 March 2013 (with additional written submissions received 4April, 19 April and 24 April 2013)Appearances: K P Sullivan for ApplicantA M Powell for Respondent (excused as Respondent abidingthe decision)D I Henderson (in person as a person directed to be served andby leave on behalf of GP96 Ltd, a person directed to beserved)Judgment: 11 June 2013JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE[as to production of company records][1] The New Zealand Police ("the police") are in possession of items ofcomputer equipment which in turn hold information.[2] There is a contest between the liquidator of Property Ventures Limited (in receivership and in liquidation) and David Ian Henderson as to the release of theequipment. The police, who actually hold the equipment, abide the Court's decision.[3] The competing positions are:(a) Liquidator: The equipment should be ordered to be released to the liquidator, with specified safeguards to protect the interests of Mr Henderson and others; or(b) Mr Henderson: The equipment should not be released to the liquidator. The information on it should be released to the liquidator only to the extent the information is shown after independent examination to be information to which the liquidator is entitled.[4] The opposition to the liquidator's application was filed by Mr Henderson onhis own behalf and on behalf of GP96 Ltd (GP96), as persons directed to be served. Given that Mr Henderson has a right of appearance on his own behalf in any event, I have granted Mr Henderson leave to represent GP96 for the purposes of resolving this application.[5] Mr Henderson appears in this proceeding on the basis that the equipment held by the police partly contains his personal information. Mr Henderson does not appear in any directorship capacity, he having been adjudicated bankrupt and no longer able to serve as a director of companies he previously controlled. Property Ventures was until the global financial crisis the central company amongst what Iwill refer to for convenience as "the Henderson companies".[6] GP96 is a company which was previously associated with Mr Henderson as one of the Henderson companies. Its sole director is now Ian Hyndman. GP96 joined with Mr Henderson in opposition to an application filed by the police in the District Court under s 199 Summary Proceedings Act 1957. Because of an overlap in the subject matter of that proceeding and this, I directed that both Mr Hendersonand GP96 Ltd be served with this proceeding. It was then that they together filed opposition in this proceeding also.[7] The notice of opposition contains more detailed grounds of opposition than reflected in the main point of contest as I summarised it. I will, in this judgment, deal with each of the grounds raised in opposition.[8] Most of the points arise by virtue of the unusual circumstances by which some items of equipment reached the police. That said, the nature of any orders which the Court should make is complicated by the apparent intermingling of both personal and corporate information records in the course of conducting the affairs of the Henderson companies.The application and the equipment[9] The application is for orders in relation to two sets of equipment:Order 1: the external hard drives- This covers the external hard drive on which is stored electronic data extracted from a laptop obtained by the police pursuant to a search warrant executed on 8 April 2011 at premises at 96 and 110 Lichfield Street, Christchurch.Order 2: the tape backup drive- This covers a tape backup drive obtained pursuant to the search warrant, the purpose of the order being to enable the liquidator to have the tape backup drive forensically examined and the information stored on it retrieved in a readable form.[10] Since the application was filed, Mr Sullivan for the liquidator has clarified (consistently with the affidavit evidence filed by the liquidator) that the electronic information on the laptop was copied, not only to the external hard drive identified in the interlocutory application, but also to the flash drives.[11] I give leave to the liquidator to amend paragraph 1.1 of the interlocutoryapplication to add, after the words "the external hard drives of the applicant", to include the words "and flash drives on which are" in place of the words "on which is". Formal amendment of the interlocutory application is dispensed with as is re- service.A brief history of the equipmentThe police and the liquidator obtain equipment and records[12] Mr Walker was initially appointed liquidator of Property Ventures Ltd in July 2010. His appointment was stayed by reason of an appeal which was eventually abandoned in February 2012. In the meantime, Mr Walker, at the same time as other receivers and liquidators of other Henderson companies, was taking steps to obtain relevant documentation. This included by issuing notices including to Mr Hendersonunder s 261 Companies Act 1993 ("the s 261 notices"). He believed records were held at offices of Mr Henderson at 96 Lichfield Street (particularly electronic records) and 110 Lichfield Street (particularly paper records). The February 2011 earthquake left those documents and records within the generally inaccessible red zone.[13] In March 2011, the liquidator made a complaint to the police about the directors of Cashel Ventures Ltd who were also directors of PVL. The complaint concerned an alleged failure to comply with s 261 notices which if proved would constitute an offence under s 373(3) Companies Act.[14] Judge Saunders, on 6 April 2011, issued search warrants under s 198 Summary Proceedings Act 1957. The warrants were executed at 96 and 110 Lichfield Street. Seized from 96 Lichfield Street was the tape backup drive referred to in the Order 2 sought in this proceeding. Seized from 110 Lichfield Street was alaptop located in Mr Henderson's office (referred to in Order 1 sought in thisproceeding).[15] The police apparently made an arrangement with the liquidator whereby the liquidator used forensic assistance to see what information was contained on the seized items.[16] The liquidator determined that the laptop, although containing some clearly personal information of Mr Henderson, also contained a very substantial amount of information relating to companies within operations of the group. Mr Henderson raised concerns with the police about the material taken during the search, including his laptop. The police requested the return of the laptop from the liquidator. The liquidator copied the electronic data from it to an external hard drive (the hard drive referred to in Order 1 in the application) and to flash drives and returned the laptop to the police who in turn returned it to Mr Henderson.[17] Subsequently the police, in August 2012, requested the return of the records made by the liquidator. He returned records to the police and deleted his own copies.[18] The liquidator and the police then came to an arrangement whereby the police were to pursue an application for the disposal of the property seized under the District Court warrants.[19] In his memorandum filed for the police in this proceeding, Mr Powell explained that the tape backup drive (the subject of Order 2 sought in this proceeding), was also the subject of the application by the police in CIV-2012-009- 002031.[20] Mr Powell then explained:The external drive [the subject of Order no. 1] in this application is not the subject of the s 119 application because it is a subsequently taken copy of the contents of the hard drive of the laptop that was seized during the search and that laptop has already been restored to Mr Henderson, although he has claimed to Police that data on the laptop was corrupted and inaccessible to him.The District Court's proceedings[21] The police's District Court application had not been determined when this present application was filed in the High Court by the liquidator. Subsequently, MrHenderson and GP96 filed their own application in the District Court under s 199(3)(c) Summary Proceedings Act.[22] At the conclusion of the hearing of this application on 25 March 2013 I adjourned the application part-heard partly to enable the parties to obtain further information as to progress of the District Court applications.[23] The District Court applications were heard by Judge C P Somerville on 15 April 2013. On 13 May 2013, his Honour delivered a judgment containing orders as to the disposal of seized property.1[24] The District Court judgment deals with a number of categories of property, including documents and computers, which are not relevant to this proceeding.[25] Judge Somerville dealt with the tape backup drive. He found that the tape backup drive (including the tapes found inside it) were property owned by Property Ventures Ltd. His Honour ordered that the tape drive (and tapes) be delivered to Property Ventures Ltd. His Honour further found that the information on the tape drive related to Property Ventures Ltd or companies within the group and that Property Ventures Ltd was entitled to the information.2The application for Order 2 is rendered otiose[26] The application for Order 23 relates to the tape backup drive which was the subject of the Order made in the District Court on 13 May 2013. To that extent, theliquidator's application has been overtaken by the order made by the District Court with competent jurisdiction. The liquidator's application is rendered otiose.1 Riach v Property Ventures Ltd DC Christchurch, CIV-2012-009-002031, 13 May 2013.2 At [27]-[29].3 See above at [9].The District Court judgment leaves the application for Order 1 to be determined[27] The amended application for Order 1 relates to the external hard drive and the flash drives on which is stored electronic data extracted from the laptop seized by the police.[28] Of these items, Judge Somerville observed:4Because my jurisdiction is only over the actual documents seized, and not over any copies taken of those documents, I have no jurisdiction to make any orders or give any directions in relation to copies of any of the information seized by the police under the two warrants. That will be a matter for the High Court to determine.[29] In relation to the limitation of the District Court's jurisdiction under s 199Summary Proceedings Act, his Honour referred to the Court of Appeal decision inM A v The Attorney-General.5The jurisdiction to make orders as to documents and informationSection 266 (and s 261) Companies Act 1993 – the jurisdiction to order production of documents and information[30] By s 261(1) of the Act, a liquidator has power to require anyone with company books, records, or documents to deliver the same to the liquidator.("Document" as defined in s 2 of the Act means a document in any form, includinginformation stored electronically).[31] Section 266 of the Act empowers the Court, on the application of a liquidator, to order a person who has failed to comply with a requirement under s 261 to comply with the requirement.Timeliness[32] This High Court proceeding arises in the Court's Companies Act jurisdiction.In particular, it arises under Part 16 of the Act which deals with liquidations.4 Riach v Property Ventures Ltd, above n 1, at [56].5 At [56] referring to A v Attorney-General [2009] NZCA 490 at [32].[33] Relevantly to company liquidations, the long title to the Act notes that the Companies Act is:An Act to reform the law relating to companies, and, in particular –(e) To provide straightforward and fair procedures for realising and distributing the assets of insolvent companies.[34] Part of Parliament's intended "straightforward" approach must be one which delivers expeditious (but just) outcomes.[35] That this is so is reinforced by s 253 Companies Act which provides that one aspect of the principal duty of the liquidator is to: take possession of, protect, realise, and distribute the assets of thecompany to its creditors in accordance with this Act;in a reasonable and efficient manner.Efficiency and timeliness (subject to the respect of others' rights) are to beencouraged. Anything that works against efficiency and timeliness, if it does notsacrifice other's rights, is to be discouraged.The subject matter of the application for Order 1[36] The external hard drive was not seized pursuant to the search warrant. As my summarised history indicates, what was seized was a laptop located in MrHenderson's office at 110 Lichfield Street. Pursuant to arrangements between thepolice and the liquidator, the liquidator used forensic assistance to copy electronic data from the laptop to the external hard drive and the flash drives referred to in the amended Order 1. Mr Henderson already has the laptop back.Application of the jurisdiction – an unfulfilled request[37] The present application comes about in a practical way by reason of sensible cooperation between the police and the liquidator. The police were alert to concerns, particularly privacy concerns, raised by Mr Henderson. Therefore, rather thanmeeting the request of the liquidator for the return of the hard drives and flash driveswhich (leaving aside their electronic contents) were the liquidator's own property,the police left it to the liquidator to make this application. The effect of the application is to seek an order in relation to the information on the hard drives and flash drives.Application of the jurisdiction – the recipient of the request[38] By s 261(1) Companies Act, the liquidator was entitled to require the policeas "any other person" under s 261(1) to deliver up documents (which includes electronic documents) of Property Ventures. I reject the submission of Mr Henderson to the effect that the police are not "any other person" within s 261(1) of the Act. The police constitute a "person" as defined by s 29 Interpretation Act 1999. Furthermore, the liquidator would have been entitled to issue a s 261 notice against individual police officers who held particular documents. It was entirely appropriate (as well as efficient) that the liquidator treated the police as an unincorporated body.Application of the jurisdiction – the subject matter of the request[39] The information contained on the laptop and copied to the external hard drive and flash drives contained information as to the affairs of Property Ventures. In particular, the liquidator deposes:6The laptop however contained very relevant information as it contained a local copy of documents including significant accounting and financial information in Excel spread-sheet format, as well as contracts, emails and correspondence from and to Mr Henderson as managing director of the PVLGroup and Dweller Ltd. I note that Dweller Ltd was a 'phoenix' companyreactivated to assume the residual business of PVL upon PVL's demise.Once the stay in PVL was lifted, I set about accessing the PVL Group information as part of my investigation into the affairs and management of the PVL Group.[40] Responsibly, the liquidator went on to recognise that the laptop contained some information which could be said to be personal to Mr Henderson. He deposed:76 Affirmation of liquidator at [5.21].7 At [7].The laptop did have some information that could be said to be personal, for example some emails between Mr Henderson and his family, some photos, and some information that was unrelated to the PVL group. However the vast bulk of information was just his documents and correspondence in his role a (sic) managing director of the PVL group and Dweller and in running the bars and restaurants which were operated from Sol Square by his management company Atlas Food and Beverage Ltd (now struck off but in liquidation from 27 October 2010).[41] The liquidator, in his affidavit, identified what was for him the importance of having access to all documentation concerning the intermingled affairs of Property Ventures and of the entities within the group. He deposed:8It is important that I clarify the extent of inter-mingling of the affairs of the PVL group and the importance that I have access to information relating to the affairs. PVL was the only company that maintained audited accounts. The parent company controlled all of the finances across the group and monies were simply redistributed through PVL from one subsidiary company to another as needs arose. There were cross guarantees between numerous entities and interlinked borrowings again with PVL acting as the conduit. It is impossible to understand the business of PVL without reference to a wide range of related and subsidiary companies, which includes the food and beverage companies as well as the individual development companies.[42] In the judgment of Judge Somerville in Riach v Property Ventures Ltd,9 his Honour said in discussing the tape drive that he was satisfied that the information on the backup tapes relates to Property Ventures or companies within the group. His Honour found that Property Ventures Ltd was therefore entitled to the information. It is apparent that the Court was accepting the primary right of Property Ventures to the information.[43] It is the liquidator's case that the external hard drives and flash drives (which contain electronic data extracted from the laptop obtained by the police through the search warrant), constitute the records of Property Ventures. Section 266(2) Companies Act empowers the Court to order a person holding the documents relating to the business, accounts or affairs of the company in liquidation to produce to the liquidator those documents. The liquidator has by his affidavit solemnly undertaken that his immediate need for the documents is in relation to civil proceedings currently before the High Court. Claims within those proceedings were8 At [8].9 Riach v Property Ventures Ltd, above n 1, at [29].potentially affected by statutory limitations under the Limitation Act 2010. The liquidator needs all documents of Property Ventures relevant to the High Court claims, both in order to be able to pursue the proceedings and in order to meet in a timely way his obligations of discovery. The liquidator undertakes that he will not be disclosing information which may be contained on the external hard drives which is not relevant or which is privileged.Grounds of oppositionIntermingling of Property Ventures' and other information[44] The grounds of opposition of Mr Henderson and of GP96 to the application, so far as the documents may involve an intermingling of private and corporate information, are:10The Court does not have jurisdiction to make orders that require delivery to the liquidator of books, records, documents or information to which the liquidator is not entitled, it being acknowledged by the applicant that the granting of the orders sought will result in information to which the liquidator is not entitled being supplied to him;The electronic data stored in the external hard drives (as distinct from the hard drives themselves) contains information to which the liquidator is not entitled and all electronic data on the hard drive should be examined to determine what information the liquidator is entitled to and then such information only should be delivered to the liquidator;The electronic data on the tape backup drive contains information to which the liquidator is not entitled and all such electronic data should be examined to determine what information the liquidator is entitled to and then such information only should be delivered to the liquidator;The safeguards proposed by the applicant are not adequate to protect the legitimate interests of the third parties.Discussion[45] There is no doubt that the physical property sought by the liquidator – the external hard drives and flash drives themselves – are the liquidator's property. He obtained them and caused them to be used for the extracting of the laptop information.10 Notice of Opposition at [3.7], [3.8], [3.9] and [3.10].[46] There is also no dispute as to the fact that the hard drives and flash drives contain electronic documents which include information of Property Ventures and the group companies. The point which Mr Henderson made in relation to his concerns as to the subject matter of information was not that all the information on the drives was private or unrelated to Property Ventures and the group. Rather, as the notice of opposition indicates, Mr Henderson is concerned that some of the information the liquidator may have obtained will prove to be (his) or (GP96's)private information.[47] Once the point is reached that it is proved or accepted that the documents in relation to which a Court order is sought under s 266 of the Act relate to the affairs ofthe company, and are in a person's control (in this case the control of the police), the discretion under s 266(2) of the Act is engaged.[48] At some point in the history of his involvement with the various Henderson companies and his control of his personal affairs, Mr Henderson, (or his employees) chose to carry on the hard drive of the laptop information relating to the affairs of a number of different legal persons. Once that decision and practice was adopted, there would be an intermingling to be dealt with in the event that any of those persons was subsequently placed either in bankruptcy or in liquidation. The legal right to access of documents relating to the affairs of those persons would pass to their administrator. That is precisely what has happened in this case with the liquidation of Property Ventures and a number of other companies in the group.[49] The real issue of substance in this case is not whether the liquidator of Property Ventures and other companies in the group should have access to documents related to the affairs of Property Ventures and the group. Rather, the issue is how that should be done assuming that some of the documents held on the hard drives may arguably relate solely to other persons.[50] By reason of the submissions made by Mr Henderson in the District Court, a similar issue confronted Judge Somerville in reaching his judgment. In that proceeding, as in this, Mr Henderson had submitted that the electronic data contains information to which the liquidator is not entitled. Mr Henderson then submittedand now submits that the electronic records should be examined to determine what information the liquidator is entitled to. Only then, he submits, should such information be delivered to the liquidator.[51] His Honour Judge Somerville recorded and determined in relation to that submission in the District Court:11Even on the list of documents prepared by Detective-Sergeant Riach, therefore, there is clear evidence that the first respondent is not entitled to all of the documents held by the police. Mr Henderson suggested that the police should put together a full inventory of all of the material seized under their two warrants. He would then provide a completed schedule of all of the non- contested material (estimated to be 80 – 90 %) which could then be released to Mr Walker who would review the police inventory and determine whether there were any remaining items over which he made no claim. These could then be returned to the persons entitled. If any of the remaining documents were contested, they could be provided to the Court and directions made as to how that dispute might be resolved.This offer was rejected by the other parties and appears to me to be unnecessarily complex.Instead, the police are to review all of the documents they currently possess and return to the first respondent those that are relevant to the 32 companies in liquidation over which Mr Walker has authority.The remainder of the documents are to be given to Mr Henderson, the person from whom they were seized. As I say later in paragraph [52], the twowarrants were executed in order to obtain documents in Mr Henderson'spossession; it is only appropriate that they be returned to him as the person from whom they were seized.[52] I record that in his submissions to the High Court, Mr Henderson had suggested also an alternative procedure involving attendance of the parties at mediation in an effort to resolve any difficulties that either party may have in relation to proposed orders. Judge Somerville, in his judgment, does not avert expressly to the concept of mediation, but it must be taken that his Honour considered any such approach to be unnecessarily complex and time consuming.[53] I am satisfied that, in considering whether to make an order under s 266 of the Act, it is no more appropriate to order the completion of an inventory in this case than it was in the Summary Proceedings Act case before the District Court.11 Riach v Property Ventures Ltd, above n 1, at [18]-[21].[54] I have particular regard to the following matters:(a) It is not in dispute that Mr Henderson (or his agents) assembled on his laptop information which covered the affairs of Property Ventures as well as other persons;(b) An underlying purpose of the Court's powers to make orders (such as under s 266 of the Act) in relation to the liquidation of a company is toensure that the company's assets are able to be realised and distributedthrough a straightforward and fair procedure. Such, as I have said, must be delivered expeditiously where possible.12[55] While Mr Henderson has voiced concerns as to past conduct of the liquidator, including in relation to Property Ventures and companies in the group, the liquidator remains in office. As an officer of the Court, he is always subject to the Court'ssupervision. That includes, for instance, in relation to the use he makes of any document which he obtains pursuant to his powers under the Companies Act generally or pursuant to an order of the Court under the Act.[56] The liquidator's specific, immediate need for the documents is to pursue the streams of litigation which the liquidator has now caused Property Ventures to issue against those alleged to be accountable for losses of the company and indirectly of its creditors. Mr Henderson is one of the defendants.[57] The very process in those streams of litigation for discovery, in the context of the modern High Court rules as to discovery and inspection, means that the liquidator will be immediately faced with the need to categorise electronic documents which he receives into categories relating to their qualification in terms of the tailored or standard discoveries of the High Court litigation. Therefore there will be a convenient opportunity, at the same time, to categorise documents in terms of relevance to the affairs of other liquidated companies under the control of the liquidator. Finally, the liquidator will be able to identify by that process of elimination the documents which do not relate to the affairs of any of the liquidated12 Above at [35].companies and which can therefore either be returned electronically or deleted from the records held by the liquidator.[58] The liquidator has current duties of disclosure in the other High Court proceedings. The expeditious and just outcome is that there be an order under s 266 in favour of the liquidator, but on terms which require the timely completion of lists. Reservation of leave to apply will provide a mechanism for ensuring that any issues which arise as to where the documents which come to be held electronically by the liquidator as a result of the s 266 order truly fall within the category of records covered by s 266(2)(b) of the Act.New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues[59] In addition to these grounds of opposition expressly advanced by the respondents, Mr Henderson at the hearing addressed submissions under the heading"Bill of Rights Issues". Mr Henderson attached and relied upon submissions he hadmade to the District Court in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. He submitted that the hard drives contain:An unspecified amount of information with the strong potential that such information was outside of any search warrant, let alone the appropriate subject of any s 261 notice.OutcomeDiscussion[60] I have found that the threshold requirements under s 266 of the Act are established. In particular, there are on the drives documents relating to Property Ventures and other group companies.[61] Mr Henderson complains that the information now sought by the liquidator from the police is in the hands of the police only by reason of seizure outside the terms of a search warrant.[62] As in the case before Judge Somerville, it is not appropriate to determine such an issue in the present context. If Mr Henderson is entitled, by reason of theway in which the search warrant was obtained or executed, to have a Court at some later trial rule that the information so obtained should be excluded as evidence, nothing in this judgment affects that entitlement. In this judgment, I am dealing simply with the consequence of the fact that the liquidator had the right to obtain this information under the Companies Act. It matters not whether the information is in the hands of Mr Henderson or the police (whether properly or improperly).[63] There will be an order as sought by the liquidator, but on terms.Costs[64] I reserve costs. My tentative conclusion is that costs must follow the event on a 2B basis. If the parties are unable to agree on that or any other costs outcome, submissions (of no more than four pages) may be filed. In that event, the applicant is to file within 10 working days of this judgment and Mr Henderson/GP96 are to file within five working days thereafter. Costs will then be determined on the papers.[65] Having regard to the position adopted by the police as respondent, there will be no order as to costs in that regard.Orders[66] I direct:(a) The New Zealand Police are to deliver to Robert Bruce Walker ("the liquidator"), as liquidator of Property Ventures Ltd (in receivership and in liquidation), and of companies associated with Property Ventures Ltd, the external hard drive and the flash drives on which is stored electronic data extracted from a laptop obtained by the police pursuant to a search warrant executed on 8 April 2011 at premises at 96 and 110 Lichfield Street, Christchurch, such delivery to take place forthwith upon receipt of this Order and, in any event, no later than five working days after the date of this Order;(b) The liquidator is within 15 working days to complete by list an analysis of the electronic data so delivered in which he categorises the individual electronic documents into the following categories, namely:(i) Documents required to be disclosed by the liquidator in relation to existing High Court proceedings;(ii) Documents which relate to the affairs of Property Ventures Ltd or any related company of which the liquidator is liquidator, other than documents which are disclosed under paragraph (b)(i) above;(iii) Documents which do not fall into either of the preceding ((i) or (ii)) categories.(c) The liquidator shall file and serve in this proceeding within 20 working days a memorandum attaching the lists referred to in paragraph (b);(d) At any written request of David Ian Henderson, which may be made on behalf of both himself and GP96 or of either, made within five working days after receipt of the liquidator's memorandum, the liquidator shall provide to Mr Henderson either an electronic copy of all documents referred to in the third category of documents at paragraph (b)(iii) above, or shall promptly after Mr Henderson'swritten request provide to Mr Henderson written confirmation that all documents in that category ((b)(iii)) obtained by the liquidator as aresult of this Order have been deleted from the liquidator's electronicrecords;(e) This proceeding is adjourned for case management purposes for mention in the List at Christchurch at 10.30 am, 18 July 2013;(f) Leave is reserved to any party to apply for further directions.Associate Judge OsborneSolicitors:DLA Phillips Fox – WellingtonCrown Law Office, WellingtonD I Henderson, Christchurch