SAFARI CONSTRUCTIONS (2005) LIMITED v CONCEPT BUILDERS QUEENSTOWN LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2387

SAFARI CONSTRUCTIONS (2005) LIMITED v CONCEPT BUILDERS QUEENSTOWN LIMITED [2023] NZHC 2387

On a de novo on‑notice hearing the applicants met the onus: they demonstrated a good arguable case of fraudulent invoicing and related causes of action, identified assets within New Zealand, and established a real risk of dissipation by inference from the alleged sustained fraud and transfers to the director; the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] NZHC 2387
Parties
First Applicant: SAFARI CONSTRUCTIONS (2005) LIMITED; Second Applicant: SAFARI CONSTRUCTION (2015) LIMITED; Third Applicant: SAFARI CONSTRUCTION LIMITED; Fourth Applicant: SAFARI CONSTRUCTION 2019 LIMITED; Fifth Applicant: SAFARI GROUP (NZ) LIMITED; First Respondent: CONCEPT BUILDERS QUEENSTOWN LIMITED; Second Respondent: MARTIN LAWN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
31 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Freezing Order Interlocutory Application and Substantive Fraud/damages Claim / Interlocutory Application to Discharge Without‑notice Freezing Orders (de Novo Hearing); Substantive Trial Scheduled 2024
Outcome
Freezing orders continued.
Legal Topics
Freezing Orders, Asset Dissipation, Fraudulent Invoicing (ghost Contractors), Deceit, Money Had and Received, Constructive Trust, Misleading and Deceptive Conduct (s 9 Fair Trading Act), Balance of Convenience
Civil Injunctions Equity Commercial Fraud Employment Law Trusts Statutory Consumer Protection Freezing Orders +7 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SAFARI CONSTRUCTIONS (2005) LIMITED

First Applicant

SAFARI CONSTRUCTION (2015) LIMITED

Second Applicant

SAFARI CONSTRUCTION LIMITED

Third Applicant

SAFARI CONSTRUCTION 2019 LIMITED

Fourth Applicant

SAFARI GROUP (NZ) LIMITED

Fifth Applicant

CONCEPT BUILDERS QUEENSTOWN LIMITED

First Respondent

MARTIN LAWN

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Freezing Order Interlocutory Application and Substantive Fraud/damages Claim / Interlocutory Application to Discharge Without‑notice Freezing Orders (de Novo Hearing); Substantive Trial Scheduled 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants have a good arguable case on accrued causes of action
  2. 2 Whether there are assets in New Zealand to which freezing orders can apply
  3. 3 Whether there is a real risk of dissipation of assets

Ratio Decidendi

On a de novo on‑notice hearing the applicants met the onus: they demonstrated a good arguable case of fraudulent invoicing and related causes of action, identified assets within New Zealand, and established a real risk of dissipation by inference from the alleged sustained fraud and transfers to the director; the balance of convenience and overall justice therefore required continuation of the freezing orders.

Court Disposition

Freezing orders continued.

Orders

  • The freezing orders initially made in THL (2005) Ltd v JDR Ltd [2022] NZHC 3627 are continued as against the first and second respondents.
  • The respondents' application to discharge the freezing orders is dismissed.