17 Feb 2023
The Court approved the parties' consent settlement under s 95 because the evidence showed the bulk of the seized cash was likely proceeds of drug supply while $8,154.02 was satisfactorily traced to an inheritance; accordingly the Court made an assets forfeiture order by consent under s 50(1) for $79,990.98 and ordered return of $8,154.02 to the respondent.
6 Jul 2022
The Court approved the s95 settlement because it was consistent with the Act's purposes and the overall interests of justice: it fairly balanced public interest in deterrence and realization of proceeds of offending against pragmatic considerations of cost, delay and the impracticality of pursuing further profit forfeiture; accordingly $5,000 was released to the respondents' nominated account and the remainder of the restrained funds vested in the Crown and the Official Assignee.
6 Jul 2021
The Court has jurisdiction under s 266 to order the respondent (a sole director/shareholder) to attend for examination and produce company books concerning matters relating to the business, accounts and affairs of the company even though proceedings against him are extant; the liquidators demonstrated the examination and production are reasonably necessary to fulfil their statutory duties given the respondent's non-cooperation; the examination is not oppressive and any risk to limitation defences can be mitigated by an undertaking limiting use of the examination record as an acknowledgment un…
24 Feb 2021
On the material and circumstantial evidence the plaintiffs established a good arguable case that Waihopai (and related persons) received and dealt with the plaintiffs' funds, there were identifiable assets or proceeds to which orders could attach, and there was a real risk of dissipation given rapid transfers to directors/related parties and lack of satisfactory explanation; accordingly interim freezing and ancillary orders (including against third parties and a limited passport surrender and disclosure) were appropriate and justified pending trial.
19 Dec 2019
The Court concluded the Commissioner demonstrated it was impossible or impracticable to formulate the required forfeiture originating application in compliance with the Act without the specified documents; accordingly an order under HCR r 8.20 for particular discovery was necessary and was made with a timetable requiring the respondent to file an affidavit about control of the listed documents and to produce them for inspection if in his control by 28 February 2020.
23 Oct 2019
The liquidator established a proper basis under s 266(2) to require production: given the factual matrix (registered office occupied by Sahay, unexplained transactions, outstanding s 261 notice and access to electronic accounts) it is likely Sahay has relevant documents in her possession or control; requiring production is not oppressive or unreasonable; therefore orders compelling production were granted with a 10 working day compliance period.
21 Feb 2019
The Court granted the adjournment and exercised its case management discretion to require the plaintiffs to file an amended statement of claim and to set a timetable for the defendant's application for particulars, notices of opposition, any application for discovery and opposition to discovery, and directed a hearing for all opposed applications on 12 June 2019 with a schedule for submissions and exchange of common bundle; costs were reserved.
16 Dec 2015
Application for examination under r7.48 dismissed because the Court was not satisfied the defendant was a party in default personally responsible for non-payment or that examination would be an effective remedy; instead the Court ordered continued focused documentary and interlocutory inquiry (including plaintiff-formulated questions for Court approval) and granted an interim publication restriction pending confidentiality/redaction applications.
16 Aug 2011
The Court, expressing a preliminary view that it would likely have power under the Companies Act 1993 to order production of most of the documents sought, directed a procedural course rather than deciding the substantive dispute: the respondent must provide an affidavit addressing the outstanding documents and any absence of possession or control, the applicants will then list further matters for answer, and the hearing is adjourned for further directions; the Court reserved costs and any substantive orders on production or examination are to be considered if issues remain unresolved at the r…
16 Dec 2009
Court held on the balance of probabilities that: the $200,000 deposit paid by Palmer was a loan owed by the Trust to Palmer and was not repaid in full; the $1,932,340 used to settle the Whenuapai purchase should be treated as a joint advance by Allen and Palmer to the Trust (not a gift from Fortune Management); certain motorcycles transferred on Allen/Palmer instructions created indebtednesss of the Trust to the contributor(s); the retrospectively prepared signed accounts are not settled and must be re-opened and corrected; selected admissions to the Serious Fraud Office were admissible again…