Agam v Moon - [2025] NZHC 1498

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-2341

[2025] NZHC 1498

BETWEEN
AVRAHAM YAACOV AGAM

Plaintiff

AND

JONATHAN ANDREW MOON

First Defendant

OUTER ASPECT IP LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing: 23 May 2025

Counsel:

KT Glover and O Zambuto for Plaintiff

F Geiringer and D Nilsson for Defendants

Judgment:

11 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 June 2025 at 4pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Solicitors/Counsel:
Hudson Gavin Martin, Auckland LeeSalmonLong, Auckland
K Glover, Shortland Chambers, Auckland
F Geiringer, Lambton Chambers, Wellington

AGAM v MOON & ANOR [2025] NZHC 1498 [11 June 2025]

What this application is about and the result

[1] Mr Avraham Agam is the plaintiff in substantive civil proceedings against Mr Jonathan Moon and his company Outer Aspect IP Ltd (OAIP). Mr Agam first filed his statement of claim on 10 October 2024. His most recent amended statement of claim was filed on 5 March 2025. The dispute centres around Mr Agam’s extremely valuable artwork which I discuss further below.

[2] On 23 September 2024, before a statement of claim was filed, Mr Agam applied for and was granted a without notice interim injunction by Wilkinson-Smith
J.1 That injunction prevented the defendants from selling or offering for sale over
2,500 of Mr Agam’s artworks which they had produced using their sophisticated computer technology, and which were (and are) still in their possession.

[3] It also prevented them from approaching, contacting or otherwise dealing with galleries or art dealers in connection with attempts to sell the artworks; and restraining Mr Moon and his company from creating any further copies of the artworks.

[4] The defendants withheld the artworks because they said Mr Agam had not paid them for their work in producing them. Mr Agam disputed this, maintaining he owed nothing more. Mr Agam feared the artworks might be sold before resolution of the dispute. This would devalue their worth. In effect he feared a “fire sale”.

[5] Subsequently, on 18 October 2024, the defendants applied for the rescission or variation of the interim injunction. If rescission was not granted, the variation sought was to make the injunction subject to terms requiring the payment of security for costs and in support of Mr Agam’s undertaking as to damages.

[6] That application came before me on 14 November 2024, and I released my decision on 18 December 2024.2 I refused to rescind the injunction.3 However, I added a condition that Mr Agam was to provide security for his undertaking as to damages in the sum of NZD 2 million into a trust account. It was to be paid by 17

1 Agam v Moon [2024] NZHC 2749.
2 Agam v Moon [2024] NZHC 3907.
3 At [123].

January 2025. While I did not put it as such at the time, counsel seem agreed that this amounted to a variation of Wilkinson-Smith J’s…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Agam v Moon and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 1498
Decision Date: 11 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Agam v Moon involved a dispute between Mr Avraham Agam, an internationally renowned artist, and Mr Jonathan Moon, the director of Outer Aspect IP Limited (OAIP). Mr Agam sought an injunction to prevent the sale of his extremely valuable artworks which were being withheld by OAIP due to a dispute over payment. The defendants argued that Mr Agam owed them more than USD 4.1 million for the production of the artworks. Mr Agam maintained he owed nothing more and feared a "fire sale" that would devalue his artworks. The court initially granted an interim injunction preventing the sale of the artworks, but later varied it to require Mr Agam to provide security for damages in the sum of NZD 2 million. When Mr Agam failed to provide the security, the injunction lapsed.

In response, Mr Agam applied for several remedial orders, including rescission of the injunction. He argued that the injunction was improperly obtained based on false or misleading evidence provided by Mr Moon regarding the whereabouts of some of the artworks. The court found that while Mr Moon's evidence was indeed false or misleading, it did not materially influence the court's decision. The court concluded that even if it had known the true situation, it would have still imposed the NZD 2 million condition on the injunction. Therefore, the application for rescission was dismissed. The court also noted that costs should not follow the event and encouraged the parties to agree on costs for the application.

Orders