Body Corporate 68792 v Lynx Trustees Limited (in liquidation)
[2025] NZHC 2278
•12 August 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE
CIV-2019-485-389
[2025] NZHC 2278
UNDER the Companies Act 1993 IN THE MATTER
of the liquidation of Lynx Trustees Limited
BETWEEN
BODY CORPORATE 68792
Plaintiff
AND
LYNX TRUSTEES LIMITED (in
liquidation) Defendant
AND
ROY BASSETT-BURR
Interested party
Hearing: On the papers Counsel:
G A D Neil and R M G Hindriksen for the liquidators of Lynx Trustees Ltd (in liquidation)
Interested party in person
Judgment:
12 August 2025
JUDGMENT OF GRICE J
Introduction
[1] By notice of motion dated 20 December 2024, Mr Bassett-Burr seeks a stay of the liquidation of Lynx Trustees Ltd (in liq) (Lynx). The liquidator was appointed on 10 September 2019 on the application of the body corporate applicant.1
1 Sealed order liquidating defendant company and appointing liquidator, CIV-2019-485-389 (10 September 2019).
BODY CORPORATE 68792 v LYNX TRUSTEES LIMITED (in liq) [2025] NZHC 2278 [12 August 2025]
Background
[2] In his memorandum dated 6 March 2025, Mr Bassett-Burr says he is the sole director and sole shareholder of Lynx. He says that Lynx is a former corporate trustee of the Link Trust No.1 (Link Trust). The Link Trust is the family trust of Mr Harry Memelink.
[3] In July 2022, receivers were appointed to the Link Trust and a stay has operated on proceedings brought by or against the Link Trust since December 2022.2 Mr Bassett-Burr is a longtime business associate, advisor and brother-in-law of Mr Memelink.3 The application is supported by an affidavit of Mr Bassett-Burr and of Mr Memelink.
[4] In his memorandum to the Court dated 6 March 2025, Mr Bassett-Burr says that this application is a duplicate of one “first withdrawn in 2022”. Mr Bassett-Burr says that a lawyer acting for the Body Corporate 68972 litigation, Mr O’Connor, “and other professionals” acted in a fraudulent and systemic manner which brought about the liquidation proceedings of Lynx. He states in his memorandum to the Court dated 6 March 2025 that:
I recently became aware and understand that I have an enduring duty as a Director of Lynx despite it being in liquidation to notify the Court and all interested parties any time I have new information which is material to any Lynx litigation be it as a plaintiff or a respondent in proceedings.
I also am aware that I have a duty to protect the interests of the Company for which it was specifically formed to act as a corporate trustee of Link Trust No.1. The Trust indemnity does not cover fraudulently obtained judgments. Irreparable harm and damage has been caused to all affected parties.
There is now indisputable evidence which I will provide in a signed affidavit to support my application for Termination of the Lynx liquidation and as a firsthand witness to:
…
[5] Mr Bassett-Burr proceeds to list various statutes and regulations, including the Unit Titles Act 2010 and regulations as well and the Crimes Act 1961. The list includes
2 Body Corporate 81012 v Memelink [2022] NZHC 1244; Body Corporate 81012 v Memelink
[2022] NZHC 3307.
3 Body Corporate 68792 v Memelink [2023] NZHC 3850 [restraining decision] at [59].
allegations of lawyers misleading the Court and refers to the actions and inactions of “Court appointed Administrators and judicial officers including the misappropriation of funds”. Mr Bassett-Burr further submits in his memorandum to the Court dated 6 March 2025:
I wish the Court to recognise and acknowledge that as Lynx director I have, responsibly carried out my directors duties and obligations by, among other things, ensuring the Liquidators are sufficiently aware of the allegations of BC68792 fraud and misconduct so that that they will take action to protect the Link Trust No.1.
[6] The liquidator opposes Mr Bassett-Burr’s application saying that it is the same as the one filed previously. The liquidator seeks that the application be struck out as an abuse of process as follows:
(o)… the application is an abuse of the Court’s processes as it seeks to:
(i)circumvent the remedies available to a shareholder of a liquidated company under the Companies Act 1993, and to relitigate issues previously determined by the Court that are res judicata and judgments that are functus officio; and
(ii)advance allegations previously raised by and for the benefit of another, Harry Memelink, who is himself prohibited from doing so as of right and without the sanction of the Court.
(p)The evidence adduced in support of Mr Bassett Burr’s application is:
(i)predominately inadmissible in that it is comprised of irrelevant material and hearsay statements;
(ii)contains material in the nature of submissions;
(iii)is not confined to the matters in issue; and
(iv)contains scandalous material.
[7] Mr Bassett-Burr filed an affidavit dated 13 September 2022 in support of the earlier application for stay. The affidavit included wide-ranging and detailed allegations said to undermine the judgment of Simon France J. These allegations include:
(a)Lynx not legally being a trustee of Link Trust;
(b)a legal opinion to the body corporate was fraudulently altered;
(c)the body corporate administrator mislead the liquidators. This is supported by a detailed analysis of the invoices issued by the administrator;
(d)breaches of duties of care by the liquidator;
(e)fraud within the body corporate;
(f)Mr O’Connor is a disgraced lawyer and also acted as a lawyer for the administrator.
[8] Associate Judge Johnston noted that the earlier application for stay was hopeless for the following reasons:4
[17] I have had little difficulty in concluding that Mr Bassett-Burr’s application was indeed hopeless:
(a)The focus of r 31.11 is a stay of liquidation proceedings. It is not at all obvious to me how an order could be made staying the liquidation itself.
(b)Even if it were open to the Court to do so, the order winding up Lynx Trustees Ltd (in liquidation) was made in September 2019, and the liquidation has proceeded to a point where the liquidators were seeking the approval of their costs. In other words, not only is the original proceeding a matter of historical interest only, the liquidation itself is virtually at an end. The prospect of the Court interfering at this point was always vanishingly small.
(c)As Mr O’Connor and Mr Neil both submit, Mr Bassett-Burr is not someone who, as of right, has standing to make his application. He would need leave. He has not applied for or secured the same.
Issues of re-litigation
[9] Mr Bassett-Burr now suggests his standing comes from his obligations as a director. However, I agree with the respondent that this application merely seeks to relitigate issues pursued earlier by or at the behest of Mr Memelink and determined by this Court. As a result of Mr Memelink’s conduct of that litigation, he is presently restrained under s 166(1) of the Senior Courts Act 2016 from continuing civil
4 Body Corporate 68792 v Lynx Trustees Ltd (in liq) [2022] NZHC 3125.
proceedings concerning the conduct or affairs of the Body Corporate.5 Mr Memelink also argued in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court that the restraining order was fraudulently obtained.6 Those appeals were unsuccessful.
[10] The issues raised in the present application for stay have been the subject of numerous proceedings and claims. The most recent application of which I am aware was by another associate of Mr Memelink and his co-trustee in Link Trust, Ms Cisca Forster. In that application, Ms Forster sought to recall an interim injunction issued restraining the trustees (Mr Memelink and Ms Forster) from interfering with insurance arrangements of the body corporate when the administrator was trying to sell units in the complex.7
[11] These are different proceedings but the allegations are similar. For example, Ms Forster alleged “… that the Court was misled by lawyers and parties.”8 Ms Forster’s application was dismissed, with the Court holding that:9
The substantive issues raised by Ms Forster largely rehearse the issues that have already been dealt with in judgments including in relation to the appointment and removal of the administrator, Mr Gambitsis.
Ms Forster also raises broader allegations concerning the administration of the Body Corporate, the conduct of the receivers, and the actions of Mr Memelink’s legal advisers. She refers to a judgment in CIV-2024-485-497, which she claims invalidates Mr Memelink’s bankruptcy and all subsequent legal actions. These are allegations made in an attempt to relitigate issues that have already been determined in many earlier judgments.
[12] Mr Memelink is, for all practical purposes, ultimately the sole beneficiary of the family trust of which Lynx was the trustee. He has persistently made claims in relation to the body corporate in his Court and in appellate Courts over a number of years. He remains bankrupt following an extension to his bankruptcy.10 He has also been restrained from commencing or continuing any proceeding relating to the conduct of affairs of Body Corporate 68792.11 In Body Corporate 68792 v Memelink
5 Body Corporate 68792 v Memelink [2023] NZHC 3850; Memelink v Body Corporate 68792
[2024] NZCA 352; Memelink v Body Corporate 68792 [2024] NZSC 170 [SC Judgment].
6 SC Judgment above, above n 5, at [7].
7 Forster v Body Corporate 68792 [2025] NZHC 1094.
8 At [11].
9 At [30]–[31].
10 Official Assignee v Memelink [2023] NZHC 3044.
11 Restraining decision, above n 3, at [139].
(Restraining decision), the judgment outlines the full history of Mr Memelink’s disputes through his trust with the body corporate, including a reference to the decision of Simon France J. The Court said (footnotes omitted):12
The application by Lynx Trustees Ltd to set aside the statutory demand by the body corporate for outstanding levies came before Simon France J. In a judgment dated 2 July 2019 dismissing the application (the Lynx Trustees decision), his Honour noted that an administrator had been appointed to the body corporate on 18 March 2015. Simon France J noted that since then there had been three consecutive administrators, and that previous judgments recorded the “onerous nature of the task” due to what the Judge described as the “obstructive and unreasonable conduct” of persons associated with the applicant.
[13] The allegations made in this proceeding are variations on allegations which have been made in other proceedings by Mr Memelink.13
Relevant law
[14] Mr Bassett-Burr refers to r 31.11 of the High Court Rules 2016 which relates to a stay of liquidation proceedings. The difficulty noted by Associate Judge Johnston remains. As he said, it is not “at all obvious how an order could be made staying the liquidation itself.”
[15]Rule 7.42A of the High Court Rules provides:
7.42A Judge’s powers to make orders and give directions on interlocutory applications
(1)This rule applies if a Judge considering an interlocutory application is satisfied that the application is plainly an abuse of the process of the court.
(2)The Judge may, on the Judge’s own initiative, make an order or give directions to ensure that the interlocutory application is disposed of or, as the case may be, proceeds in a way that complies with these rules, including (without limitation) an order under rule 15.1 that the application be struck out, stayed, or stayed on conditions.
…
(4) A copy of a Judge’s decision to strike out an interlocutory application must, if practicable, also be served on the person named as a party or,
12 At [60].
13 Some of the history is set out in Forster v Body Corporate 68792 [2025] NZHC 980.
if more than 1 person is named, those persons named as parties to the proceeding.
[16] There is no need to give the affected party any notice. However, in this case, I allowed Mr Bassett-Burr time to respond to the allegations made by the respondent that the application was hopeless and an abuse of process. Mr Bassett-Burr did so in his memorandum of the 6 March 2025.
Analysis
[17] Mr Bassett-Burr says the present application to stay the liquidation covers the same grounds as the one which he withdrew in 2022. That decision was the subject of a successful costs application against Mr Bassett-Burr in which the Associate Judge said:14
[18] … Mr Bassett-Burr is Mr Memelink’s brother-in-law. As the shareholder and director of Lynx Trustees, a former trustee of the Link Trust No. 1, he has featured in litigation concerning Mr Memelink’s bankruptcy before. Given the hopeless nature of this claim, it would not be difficult to infer that it was commenced as a cynical, last ditch effort to prevent the Court approving the liquidators’ costs at the instigation of Mr Memelink. That, in my assessment, would be an improper purpose and an abuse of the Court’s processes.
[19] By way of explanation, Mr Livingston suggests that Mr Bassett-Burr’s motivation was to ensure that issues in Mr Memelink’s bankruptcy which he regarded as being unresolved were considered by the liquidators and if necessary the Court. The issues concern claims that Mr Memelink has sought to litigate in the past relating to whether body corporate levies were payable. That, in my assessment, constitutes an attempt to stretch the Court’s credulity beyond endurance. As Mr O’Connor and Mr Neil submit, those historical claims have been dealt with in earlier proceedings by this Court and the Court of Appeal, albeit not in a way that Mr Memelink agrees with.
[18] In addition, the respondent highlights that the Courts have, on a number of occasions, commented on the unmeritorious applications brought by Mr Memelink and his associates. Mr Booth, a liquidator of Lynx, in his affidavit dated 3 March 2025 says:
9. Mr Memelink's affidavit traverses wide ranging allegations of fraud. I do not intend to respond to his various allegations as I do not consider them relevant to Mr Bassett Burr's application. I do consider however, that in providing this affidavit in support of Mr Bassett Burr's application,
14 At [18]–[20].
Mr Memelink is continuing a pattern of attempting to circumvent the finality of litigation through his associated parties. In this regard I note that Mr Bassett Burr’s second stay application of 20 December 2024 was brought shortly after:
(a)The Court of Appeal, on 28 November 2024, declined an application by Cisca Forster (Mr Memelink's co-trustee) for an extension of time to appeal two High Court decisions in challenge of orders placing Mr Memelink's trust into receivership. The Court of Appeal's decision is reported as Forster v Body Corporate 81012 [2024] NZCA 624 and relevantly records that:
"It is readily apparent from these grounds that this is yet another unmeritorious application in a long line of such applications related to Mr Memelink and his associated trusts... The respondents are entitled to finality in respect of the ongoing attempts, now being brought in Ms Forster's name only (with Mr Memelink now subject to a restraining order), to challenge the receivership orders."
(b)The High Court, on 17 December 2024, declined Mr Memelink's application to review the Registrar's refusal to accept a claim he attempted to file seeking orders setting aside his bankruptcy on the basis that it was obtained by fraud. The High Court's decision is reported as Memelink v Collins & May Law [2024] NZHC 3869 and relevantly records that:
"Mr Memelink's repeated attempts to challenge the validity of his bankruptcy have been dismissed in various judgments of the senior courts, including twice in the Supreme Court. There can be no doubt that the doctrine of res judicata applies to this further attempt by Mr Memelink to challenge his bankruptcy. It would plainly be an abuse of the Court's process for it to proceed."
[19] Mr Bassett-Burr has pursued this as an interlocutory application. I consider that it is clearly hopeless for the reasons set out by the Associate Judge at [8] above. The application is an abuse of process as it deals with matters already determined by the courts. Mr Bassett-Burr has been on notice of that position for some time. It was set out in the costs judgment by the Associate Judge Johnston in December 2022.15
Conclusion
[20] Accordingly, the interlocutory application is struck out. The application is an abuse of process for the reasons set out above. Mr Bassett-Burr had been put on notice that the application would be hopeless.
15 Body Corporate 68792 v Lynx Trustees Ltd (in liq), above n 4.
[21] Costs usually follow the event. If the liquidator seeks to pursue his application for indemnity costs, they must file and serve a memorandum setting out details of the costs sought together with the reasons. That memorandum is to be filed on or before five days from the date of this judgment. Any response by Mr Bassett-Burr must be filed and served within another five days and any reply within another three days. I will then deal with the costs on the papers.
Grice J
Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland for Liquidators
0
8
0