8 Aug 2023
Liang failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable beneficial estate or interest in the Vaughans Road property; a personal claim for damages (loss of chance) does not create a proprietary interest in the defendant's land, and there is no evidence funds from the alleged fraud were traced to the property. The caveat cannot be maintained and the application to sustain it is dismissed.
5 May 2023
Stolen client funds transferred into the family trusts were received as volunteer gifts and are traceable; both the principal stolen amounts and the capital gains attributable to their use are recoverable from the trusts by restitution or imposition of a constructive trust, subject to preserving an untainted personal contribution of $35,000 and after payment of the liquidator's costs, to be distributed pari passu to victims under s284 Companies Act 1993.
21 Apr 2023
Security for costs ordered against the second defendant (Ms Gosai) in the sum of NZD 40,000 (staged: NZD 20,000 within 20 working days and NZD 20,000 on setting down date) because the plaintiff's claim against her, as pleaded, has identifiable weaknesses and the security sought is proportionate; security for costs against the first defendant (Mr Lyons) was declined because the Court was not satisfied the plaintiff's claim as to liability against him was weak. Discovery orders were made limiting disclosure to funds from the relationship property settlement applied to Netherton St, removal of r…
25 Nov 2022
On the evidence and inferences available the Court was satisfied that Huimin Zhao dishonestly assisted Jun Zeng in relation to the Flagstaff Land Loans and Flagstaff Construction Loans and that she knowingly received trust property (established as $185,810); there was insufficient evidence to establish liability in relation to the $250,000 Misappropriated Funds; relief and quantification of loss and interest are reserved for further submissions.
3 Mar 2022
Costs awarded largely in favour of the first plaintiff on a 2B basis with disbursements allowed; specific Band C allowances granted for commencement and extensive discovery; certification for second counsel and a conversion fee allowed; limited uplifts imposed (10% uplift on 2B costs for the debarring application, 5% uplift limited for failure to accept the May 13 2021 settlement offer with temporal limitation, and 10% uplift on 2B costs for the strike‑out application) to reflect defendants' discovery misconduct and improper pleadings; no indemnity costs ordered overall; costs awarded against…
18 Nov 2021
DeMarco acted as TVAL's agent and breached fiduciary duties by diverting sale proceeds; OSRC, as vehicle controlled by DeMarco, is liable for knowing receipt with DeMarco's knowledge attributable to it; tracing into the FPT repayment failed because repayment to a creditor discharges the debt absent a close transactional link, but equity subrogated TVAL to an equitable charge over the Corsair limited to the amount actually diverted ($720,000); plaintiffs entitled to judgments on conversion, contract and restitution claims in specified sums; compound or penalty contractual interest under the or…
11 Nov 2021
Summary judgment was dismissed because the payments became the SPC's property and were applied for their intended purpose via Astoria, the plaintiff received the contractual benefits it bargained for at the time (shares) and had no contractual right to require repayment of capital; the money had and received cause of action was not complete at the time of payment and the Fair Trading Act and contractual damages claims involved factual issues unsuitable for summary judgment.
27 Oct 2021
It was premature to assess the quantum of Summit's equitable interest or to exercise discretion to decline to sustain the caveat on specified security because the evidence was insufficient and the respondent had not filed substantive opposition; the court therefore refrained from making any order and left the parties to agree security and return with a consent order.
26 Oct 2021
The Court held the administration date (27 November 2018) is the appropriate valuation date because investor account positions were bookkeeping fictions lacking proprietary title, investors held equitable charges in a single deficient mixed fund, increases in value enured to all beneficiaries proportionately, the liquidators gave no binding assurance to value at a later date, and permitting positions to remain open did not alter the legal entitlements.
9 Aug 2021
The Part 16 inquiry traced the majority of misappropriated funds into the defendants' accounts and established that the listed assets were purchased with those funds; no defence or competing interest was advanced, so the assets are held on constructive trust for the plaintiff and delivery up/transfer orders are warranted.