Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Property Ventures Limited (in liquidation and in receivership)

[2013] NZHC 1368

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2010-409-000123 [2013] NZHC 1368

UNDER  Section 266 of the Companies Act 1993

BETWEEN  THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Plaintiff

ANDPROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND IN RECEIVERSHIP)

Defendant

ANDROBERT BRUCE WALKER Applicant

ANDTHE NEW ZEALAND POLICE Respondent

Hearing:                  25 March 2013 (with additional written submissions received 4

April, 19 April and 24 April 2013)

Appearances:           K P Sullivan for Applicant

A M Powell for Respondent (excused as Respondent abiding the decision)

D I Henderson (in person as a person directed to be served and by leave on behalf of GP96 Ltd, a person directed to be

served) Judgment:          11 June 2013

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE [as to production of company records]

[1]      The  New  Zealand  Police  (“the  police”)  are  in  possession  of  items  of

computer equipment which in turn hold information.

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v PROPERTY VENTURES LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION AND IN RECEIVERSHIP) [2013] NZHC 1368 [11 June 2013]

[2]      There is a contest between the liquidator of Property Ventures Limited (in receivership and in liquidation) and David Ian Henderson as to the release of the equipment. The police, who actually hold the equipment, abide the Court’s decision.

[3]      The competing positions are:

(a)      Liquidator: The equipment should be ordered to be released to the liquidator, with specified safeguards to protect the interests of Mr Henderson and others; or

(b)Mr  Henderson:     The  equipment  should  not  be  released  to  the liquidator.  The information on it should be released to the liquidator only to the extent the information is shown after independent examination to be information to which the liquidator is entitled.

[4]      The opposition to the liquidator’s application was filed by Mr Henderson on his own behalf and on behalf of GP96 Ltd (GP96), as persons directed to be served. Given that Mr Henderson has a right of appearance on his own behalf in any event, I have granted Mr Henderson leave to represent GP96 for the purposes of resolving this application.

[5]      Mr Henderson appears in this proceeding on the basis that the equipment held by the police partly contains his personal information.   Mr Henderson does not appear in any directorship capacity, he having been adjudicated bankrupt and no longer able to serve as a director of companies he previously controlled.  Property Ventures was until the global financial crisis the central company amongst what I will refer to for convenience as “the Henderson companies”.

[6]      GP96 is a company which was previously associated with Mr Henderson as one of the Henderson companies.   Its sole director is now Ian Hyndman.   GP96 joined with Mr Henderson in opposition to an application filed by the police in the District Court under s 199 Summary Proceedings Act 1957.  Because of an overlap in the subject matter of that proceeding and this, I directed that both Mr Henderson

and GP96 Ltd be served with this proceeding.  It was then that they together filed opposition in this proceeding also.

[7]      The notice of opposition contains more detailed grounds of opposition than reflected in the main point of contest as I summarised it.  I will, in this judgment, deal with each of the grounds raised in opposition.

[8]      Most of the points arise by virtue of the unusual circumstances by which some items of equipment reached the police.   That said, the nature of any orders which the Court should make is complicated by the apparent intermingling of both personal and corporate information records in the course of conducting the affairs of the Henderson companies.

The application and the equipment

[9]      The application is for orders in relation to two sets of equipment: Order 1: the external hard drives

-    This covers the external hard drive on which is stored electronic data extracted  from  a  laptop  obtained  by  the  police  pursuant  to  a  search warrant executed on 8 April 2011 at premises at 96 and 110 Lichfield Street, Christchurch.

Order 2: the tape backup drive

-    This covers a tape backup drive obtained pursuant to the search warrant, the purpose of the order being to enable the liquidator to have the tape backup drive forensically examined and the information stored on it retrieved in a readable form.

[10]     Since the application was filed, Mr Sullivan for the liquidator has clarified (consistently with the affidavit evidence filed by the liquidator) that the electronic information on the laptop was copied, not only to the external hard drive identified in the interlocutory application, but also to the flash drives.

[11]     I give leave to the liquidator to amend paragraph 1.1 of the interlocutory application to add, after the words “the external hard drives of the applicant”, to include the words “and flash drives on which are” in place of the words “on which is”.   Formal amendment of the interlocutory application is dispensed with as is re- service.

A brief history of the equipment

The police and the liquidator obtain equipment and records

[12]     Mr Walker was initially appointed liquidator of Property Ventures Ltd in July

2010.   His appointment was stayed by reason of an appeal which was eventually abandoned in February 2012.  In the meantime, Mr Walker, at the same time as other receivers and liquidators of other Henderson companies, was taking steps to obtain relevant documentation. This included by issuing notices including to Mr Henderson under s 261 Companies Act 1993 (“the s 261 notices”).  He believed records were held  at  offices  of  Mr  Henderson  at  96  Lichfield  Street  (particularly  electronic records) and 110 Lichfield Street (particularly paper records).  The February 2011 earthquake left those documents and records within the generally inaccessible red zone.

[13]     In  March  2011,  the liquidator made a complaint to the police  about the directors of Cashel Ventures Ltd who were also directors of PVL.   The complaint concerned an alleged failure to comply with s 261 notices which if proved would constitute an offence under s 373(3) Companies Act.

[14]     Judge  Saunders,  on  6  April  2011,  issued  search  warrants  under  s  198

Summary  Proceedings  Act  1957.    The  warrants  were  executed  at  96  and  110

Lichfield Street.  Seized from 96 Lichfield Street was the tape backup drive referred to in the Order 2 sought in this proceeding.  Seized from 110 Lichfield Street was a laptop located in Mr Henderson’s office (referred to in Order 1 sought in this proceeding).

[15]     The police apparently made an arrangement with the liquidator whereby the liquidator used forensic assistance to see what information was contained on the seized items.

[16]     The liquidator determined that the laptop, although containing some clearly personal information of Mr Henderson, also contained a very substantial amount of information relating to companies within operations of the group.   Mr Henderson raised concerns with the police about the material taken during the search, including his laptop.  The police requested the return of the laptop from the liquidator.  The liquidator copied the electronic data from it to an external hard drive (the hard drive referred to in Order 1 in the application) and to flash drives and returned the laptop to the police who in turn returned it to Mr Henderson.

[17]     Subsequently the police, in August 2012, requested the return of the records made by the liquidator.  He returned records to the police and deleted his own copies.

[18]     The liquidator  and the  police then came to an  arrangement  whereby the police were to pursue an application for the disposal of the property seized under the District Court warrants.

[19]     In  his  memorandum  filed  for  the  police  in  this  proceeding,  Mr  Powell explained that the tape backup drive (the subject of Order 2 sought in this proceeding), was also the subject of the application by the police in CIV-2012-009-

002031.

[20]     Mr Powell then explained:

The external drive [the subject of Order no. 1] in this application is not the subject of the s 119 application because it is a subsequently taken copy of the contents of the hard drive of the laptop that was seized during the search and that laptop has already been restored to Mr Henderson, although he has claimed to Police that data on the laptop was corrupted and inaccessible to him.

The District Court’s proceedings

[21]     The police’s District Court application had not been determined when this present application was filed in the High Court by the liquidator.  Subsequently, Mr

Henderson  and  GP96  filed  their  own  application  in  the  District  Court  under s 199(3)(c) Summary Proceedings Act.

[22]     At the conclusion of the hearing of this application on 25 March 2013 I adjourned the application part-heard partly to enable the parties to obtain further information as to progress of the District Court applications.

[23]     The District Court applications were heard by Judge C P Somerville on 15

April 2013.  On 13 May 2013, his Honour delivered a judgment containing orders as to the disposal of seized property.1

[24]     The District Court judgment deals with a number of categories of property, including documents and computers, which are not relevant to this proceeding.

[25]     Judge Somerville dealt with the tape backup drive.  He found that the tape backup drive (including the tapes found inside it) were property owned by Property Ventures Ltd.   His Honour ordered that the tape drive (and tapes) be delivered to Property Ventures Ltd.  His Honour further found that the information on the tape drive  related  to  Property Ventures  Ltd  or  companies  within  the  group  and  that

Property Ventures Ltd was entitled to the information.2

The application for Order 2 is rendered otiose

[26]     The application for Order 23  relates to the tape backup drive which was the subject of the Order made in the District Court on 13 May 2013.  To that extent, the liquidator’s application has been overtaken by the order made by the District Court

with competent jurisdiction. The liquidator’s application is rendered otiose.

1      Riach v Property Ventures Ltd DC Christchurch, CIV-2012-009-002031, 13 May 2013.

2      At [27]-[29].

3 See above at [9].

The  District  Court  judgment  leaves  the  application  for  Order  1  to  be determined

[27]     The amended application for Order 1 relates to the external hard drive and the flash drives on which is stored electronic data extracted from the laptop seized by the police.

[28]     Of these items, Judge Somerville observed:4

Because my jurisdiction is only over the actual documents seized, and not over any copies taken of those documents, I have no jurisdiction to make any orders or give any directions in relation to copies of any of the information seized by the police under the two warrants. That will be a matter for the High Court to determine.

[29]     In relation to the limitation of the District Court’s jurisdiction under s 199

Summary Proceedings Act, his Honour referred to the Court of Appeal decision in

M A v The Attorney-General.5

The jurisdiction to make orders as to documents and information

Section 266 (and s 261) Companies Act 1993 – the jurisdiction to order production of documents and information

[30]     By  s  261(1)  of  the Act,  a  liquidator  has  power  to  require  anyone  with company books, records, or documents to deliver the same to the liquidator. (“Document” as defined in s 2 of the Act means a document in any form, including information stored electronically).

[31]     Section 266 of the Act empowers the Court, on the application of a liquidator, to order a person who has failed to comply with a requirement under s 261 to comply with the requirement.

Timeliness

[32]     This High Court proceeding arises in the Court’s Companies Act jurisdiction.

In particular, it arises under Part 16 of the Act which deals with liquidations.

[33]     Relevantly to company liquidations, the long title to the Act notes that the

Companies Act is:

An Act to reform the law relating to companies, and, in particular –

…

(e)       To  provide  straightforward  and  fair  procedures  for  realising  and distributing the assets of insolvent companies.

[34]     Part of Parliament’s intended “straightforward” approach must be one which delivers expeditious (but just) outcomes.

[35]     That this is so is reinforced by s 253 Companies Act which provides that one aspect of the principal duty of the liquidator is to:

… take possession of, protect, realise, and distribute the assets … of the

company to its creditors in accordance with this Act;

…

in a reasonable and efficient manner.

Efficiency and timeliness (subject to the respect of others’ rights) are to be encouraged.  Anything that works against efficiency and timeliness, if it does not sacrifice other’s rights, is to be discouraged.

The subject matter of the application for Order 1

[36]     The external hard drive was not seized pursuant to the search warrant. As my summarised history indicates, what was seized was a laptop located in Mr Henderson’s office at 110 Lichfield Street.   Pursuant to arrangements between the police and the liquidator, the liquidator used forensic assistance to copy electronic data from the laptop to the external hard drive and the flash drives referred to in the amended Order 1.  Mr Henderson already has the laptop back.

Application of the jurisdiction – an unfulfilled request

[37]     The present application comes about in a practical way by reason of sensible cooperation between the police and the liquidator.  The police were alert to concerns, particularly  privacy  concerns,  raised  by  Mr  Henderson.    Therefore,  rather  than

meeting the request of the liquidator for the return of the hard drives and flash drives which (leaving aside their electronic contents) were the liquidator’s own property, the police left it to the liquidator to make this application.   The effect of the application is to seek an order in relation to the information on the hard drives and flash drives.

Application of the jurisdiction – the recipient of the request

[38]     By s 261(1) Companies Act, the liquidator was entitled to require the police as  “any other person”  under s  261(1) to  deliver up  documents  (which includes electronic  documents)  of  Property  Ventures.     I  reject  the  submission  of  Mr Henderson to the effect that the police are not “any other person” within s 261(1) of the Act.  The police constitute a “person” as defined by s 29 Interpretation Act 1999. Furthermore, the liquidator would have been entitled to issue a s 261 notice against individual police officers who held particular documents.  It was entirely appropriate (as well as efficient) that the liquidator treated the police as an unincorporated body.

Application of the jurisdiction – the subject matter of the request

[39]     The information contained on the laptop and copied to the external hard drive and flash drives contained information as to the affairs of Property Ventures.   In particular, the liquidator deposes:6

The laptop however contained very relevant information as it contained a local copy of documents including significant accounting and financial information in Excel spread-sheet format, as well as contracts, emails and correspondence from and to Mr Henderson as managing director of the PVL Group and Dweller Ltd.  I note that Dweller Ltd was a ‘phoenix’ company reactivated to assume the residual business of PVL upon PVL’s demise. Once the stay in PVL was lifted, I set about accessing the PVL Group information as part of my investigation into the affairs and management of the PVL Group.

[40]     Responsibly, the liquidator went on to recognise that the laptop contained some  information  which  could  be  said  to  be  personal  to  Mr  Henderson.    He deposed:7

The laptop did have some information that could be said to be personal, for example some emails between Mr Henderson and his family, some photos, and some information that was unrelated to the PVL group.   However the vast bulk of information was just his documents and correspondence in his role a (sic) managing director of the PVL group and Dweller and in running the bars and restaurants which were operated from Sol Square by his management company Atlas Food and Beverage Ltd (now struck off but in liquidation from 27 October 2010).

[41]     The liquidator, in his affidavit, identified what was for him the importance of having access to all documentation concerning the intermingled affairs of Property Ventures and of the entities within the group.  He deposed:8

It is important that I clarify the extent of inter-mingling of the affairs of the PVL group and the importance that I have access to information relating to the affairs.   PVL was the only company that maintained audited accounts. The parent company controlled all of the finances across the group and monies  were  simply  redistributed  through  PVL  from  one  subsidiary company to another as needs arose.  There were cross guarantees between numerous entities and interlinked borrowings again with PVL acting as the conduit.    It  is  impossible  to  understand  the  business  of  PVL  without reference  to  a  wide  range  of  related  and  subsidiary  companies,  which includes the food and beverage companies as well as the individual development companies.

[42]     In the judgment of Judge Somerville in Riach v Property Ventures Ltd,9  his Honour said in discussing the tape drive that he was satisfied that the information on the backup tapes relates to Property Ventures or companies within the group.  His Honour found that Property Ventures Ltd was therefore entitled to the information. It is apparent that the Court was accepting the primary right of Property Ventures to the information.

[43]     It is the liquidator’s case that the external hard drives and flash drives (which contain electronic data extracted from the laptop obtained by the police through the search warrant), constitute the records of Property Ventures.   Section 266(2) Companies Act  empowers  the  Court  to  order  a  person  holding  the  documents relating to the business, accounts or affairs of the company in liquidation to produce to the liquidator those documents.   The liquidator has by his affidavit solemnly undertaken that his immediate need for the documents is in relation to civil proceedings currently before the High Court.  Claims within those proceedings were

potentially affected by statutory limitations under the Limitation Act 2010.   The liquidator needs all documents of Property Ventures  relevant to the High Court claims, both in order to be able to pursue the proceedings and in order to meet in a timely way his obligations of discovery.  The liquidator undertakes that he will not be disclosing information which may be contained on the external hard drives which is not relevant or which is privileged.

Grounds of opposition

Intermingling of Property Ventures’ and other information

[44]     The grounds of opposition of Mr Henderson and of GP96 to the application, so far as the documents may involve an intermingling of private and  corporate information, are:10

The Court does not have jurisdiction to make orders that require delivery to the liquidator of books, records, documents or information to which the liquidator is not entitled, it being acknowledged by the applicant that the granting  of  the  orders  sought  will  result  in  information  to  which  the liquidator is not entitled being supplied to him;

The electronic data stored in the external hard drives (as distinct from the hard drives themselves) contains information to which the liquidator is not entitled and all electronic data on the hard drive should be examined to determine what information the liquidator is entitled to and then such information only should be delivered to the liquidator;

The electronic data on the tape backup drive contains information to which the liquidator is not entitled and all such electronic data should be examined to determine what information the liquidator is entitled to and then such information only should be delivered to the liquidator;

The safeguards proposed by the applicant are not adequate to protect the legitimate interests of the third parties.

Discussion

[45]     There is no doubt that the physical property sought by the liquidator – the external hard drives and flash drives themselves – are the liquidator’s property.  He obtained  them  and  caused  them  to  be  used  for  the  extracting  of  the  laptop

information.

10     Notice of Opposition at [3.7], [3.8], [3.9] and [3.10].

[46]     There is also no dispute as to the fact that the hard drives and flash drives contain electronic documents which include information of Property Ventures and the group  companies.    The point  which  Mr Henderson made in  relation  to  his concerns as to the subject matter of information was not that all the information on the drives was private or unrelated to Property Ventures and the group.  Rather, as the notice of opposition indicates, Mr Henderson is concerned that some of the information the liquidator may have obtained will prove to be (his) or (GP96’s) private information.

[47]     Once the point is reached that it is proved or accepted that the documents in relation to which a Court order is sought under s 266 of the Act relate to the affairs of the company, and are in a person’s control (in this case the control of the police), the discretion under s 266(2) of the Act is engaged.

[48]     At some point in the history of his involvement with the various Henderson companies and his control of his personal affairs, Mr Henderson, (or his employees) chose to carry on the hard drive of the laptop information relating to the affairs of a number of different legal persons.   Once that decision and practice was adopted, there would be an intermingling to be dealt with in the event that any of those persons was subsequently placed either in bankruptcy or in liquidation.  The legal right to access of documents relating to the affairs of those persons would pass to their administrator.   That is precisely what has happened in this case with the liquidation of Property Ventures and a number of other companies in the group.

[49]     The real issue of substance in this case is not whether the liquidator of Property  Ventures  and  other  companies  in  the  group  should  have  access  to documents related to the affairs of Property Ventures and the group.   Rather, the issue is how that should be done assuming that some of the documents held on the hard drives may arguably relate solely to other persons.

[50]     By reason of the submissions made by Mr Henderson in the District Court, a similar issue confronted Judge Somerville in reaching his judgment.   In that proceeding, as in this, Mr Henderson had submitted that the electronic data contains information to which the liquidator is not entitled.   Mr Henderson then submitted

and now submits that the electronic records should be examined to determine what information the liquidator is entitled to.   Only then, he submits, should such information be delivered to the liquidator.

[51]     His Honour Judge Somerville recorded and determined in relation to that submission in the District Court:11

Even on the list of documents prepared by Detective-Sergeant Riach, therefore, there is clear evidence that the first respondent is not entitled to all of the documents held by the police. Mr Henderson suggested that the police should put together a full inventory of all of the material seized under their two warrants. He would then provide a completed schedule of all of the non- contested material (estimated to be 80 – 90 %) which could then be released to Mr Walker who would review the police inventory and determine whether there were any remaining items over which he made no claim. These could then be returned to the persons entitled. If any of the remaining documents were contested, they could be provided to the Court and directions made as to how that dispute might be resolved.

This offer was rejected by the other parties and appears to me to be unnecessarily complex.

Instead, the police are to review all of the documents they currently possess and return to the first respondent those that are relevant to the 32 companies in liquidation over which Mr Walker has authority.

The remainder of the documents are to be given to Mr Henderson, the person from whom they were seized. As I say later in paragraph [52], the two warrants were executed in order to obtain documents in Mr Henderson’s possession; it is only appropriate that they be returned to him as the person from whom they were seized.

[52]     I  record  that  in  his  submissions  to  the  High  Court,  Mr  Henderson  had suggested also an alternative procedure involving attendance of the parties at mediation in an effort to resolve any difficulties that either party may have in relation to proposed orders.  Judge Somerville, in his judgment, does not avert expressly to the concept of mediation, but it must be taken that his Honour considered any such approach to be unnecessarily complex and time consuming.

[53]     I am satisfied that, in considering whether to make an order under s 266 of the Act, it is no more appropriate to order the completion of an inventory in this case than it was in the Summary Proceedings Act case before the District Court.

[54]     I have particular regard to the following matters:

(a)      It is not in dispute that Mr Henderson (or his agents) assembled on his laptop information which covered the affairs of Property Ventures as well as other persons;

(b)An underlying purpose of the Court’s powers to make orders (such as under s 266 of the Act) in relation to the liquidation of a company is to ensure that the company’s assets are able to be realised and distributed through a straightforward and fair procedure.   Such, as I have said, must be delivered expeditiously where possible.12

[55]     While Mr Henderson has voiced concerns as to past conduct of the liquidator, including in relation to Property Ventures and companies in the group, the liquidator remains in office.  As an officer of the Court, he is always subject to the Court’s supervision.   That includes, for instance, in relation to the use he makes of any document which he obtains pursuant to his powers under the Companies Act generally or pursuant to an order of the Court under the Act.

[56]     The liquidator’s specific, immediate need for the documents is to pursue the streams of litigation which the liquidator has now caused Property Ventures to issue against those alleged to be accountable for losses of the company and indirectly of its creditors. Mr Henderson is one of the defendants.

[57]     The very process in those streams of litigation for discovery, in the context of the  modern  High  Court  rules  as  to  discovery  and  inspection,  means  that  the liquidator  will  be  immediately  faced  with  the  need  to  categorise  electronic documents which he receives into categories relating to their qualification in terms of the tailored or standard discoveries of the High Court litigation.  Therefore there will be a convenient opportunity, at the same time, to categorise documents in terms of relevance to the affairs of other liquidated companies under the control of the liquidator.   Finally, the liquidator will be able to identify by that process of elimination the documents which do not relate to the affairs of any of the liquidated

companies and which can therefore either be returned electronically or deleted from the records held by the liquidator.

[58]   The liquidator has current duties of disclosure in the other High Court proceedings.  The expeditious and just outcome is that there be an order under s 266 in favour of the liquidator, but on terms which require the timely completion of lists. Reservation of leave to apply will provide a mechanism for ensuring that any issues which arise as to where the documents which come to be held electronically by the liquidator as a result of the s 266 order truly fall within the category of records covered by s 266(2)(b) of the Act.

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act issues

[59]   In addition to these grounds of opposition expressly advanced by the respondents, Mr Henderson at the hearing addressed submissions under the heading “Bill of Rights Issues”.  Mr Henderson attached and relied upon submissions he had made to the District Court in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. He submitted that the hard drives contain:

An unspecified amount of information with the strong potential that such information was outside of any search warrant, let alone the appropriate subject of any s 261 notice.

Outcome

Discussion

[60]     I have found that the threshold requirements under s 266 of the Act are established.   In particular, there are on the drives documents relating to Property Ventures and other group companies.

[61]     Mr Henderson complains that the information now sought by the liquidator from the police is in the hands of the police only by reason of seizure outside the terms of a search warrant.

[62]     As in the case before Judge Somerville, it is not appropriate to determine such an issue in the present context.  If Mr Henderson is entitled, by reason of the

way in which the search warrant was obtained or executed, to have a Court at some later trial rule that the information so obtained should be excluded as evidence, nothing in this judgment affects that entitlement.   In this judgment, I am dealing simply with the consequence of the fact that the liquidator had the right to obtain this information under the Companies Act.  It matters not whether the information is in the hands of Mr Henderson or the police (whether properly or improperly).

[63]     There will be an order as sought by the liquidator, but on terms.

Costs

[64]     I reserve costs.  My tentative conclusion is that costs must follow the event on a 2B basis.  If the parties are unable to agree on that or any other costs outcome, submissions (of no more than four pages) may be filed.  In that event, the applicant is to file within 10 working days of this judgment and Mr Henderson/GP96 are to file within five working days thereafter.   Costs will then be determined on the papers.

[65]     Having regard to the position adopted by the police as respondent, there will be no order as to costs in that regard.

Orders

[66]     I direct:

(a)      The New Zealand Police are to deliver to Robert Bruce Walker (“the liquidator”), as liquidator of Property Ventures Ltd (in receivership and in liquidation), and of companies associated with Property Ventures Ltd, the external hard drive and the flash drives on which is stored electronic data extracted from a laptop obtained by the police pursuant to a search warrant executed on 8 April 2011 at premises at

96 and 110 Lichfield Street, Christchurch, such delivery to take place forthwith upon receipt of this Order and, in any event, no later than five working days after the date of this Order;

(b)The  liquidator  is  within  15  working  days  to  complete  by  list  an analysis of the electronic data so delivered in which he categorises the individual   electronic   documents   into   the   following   categories, namely:

(i)Documents  required  to  be  disclosed  by  the  liquidator  in relation to existing High Court proceedings;

(ii)Documents which relate to the affairs of Property Ventures Ltd or any related company of which the liquidator is liquidator, other than documents  which  are disclosed  under paragraph (b)(i) above;

(iii)     Documents which do not fall into either of the preceding ((i)

or (ii)) categories.

(c)      The  liquidator  shall  file  and  serve  in  this  proceeding  within  20 working days a memorandum attaching the lists referred to in paragraph (b);

(d)At any written request of David Ian Henderson, which may be made on behalf of both himself and GP96 or of either, made within five working days after receipt of the liquidator’s memorandum, the liquidator shall provide to Mr Henderson either an electronic copy of all documents referred to in the third category of documents at paragraph (b)(iii) above, or shall promptly after Mr Henderson’s written request provide to Mr Henderson written confirmation that all documents in that category ((b)(iii)) obtained by the liquidator as a result of this Order have been deleted from the liquidator’s electronic records;

(e)      This  proceeding  is  adjourned  for  case  management  purposes  for mention in the List at Christchurch at 10.30 am, 18 July 2013;

(f)       Leave is reserved to any party to apply for further directions.

Associate Judge Osborne

Solicitors:

DLA Phillips Fox – Wellington

Crown Law Office, Wellington
D I Henderson, Christchurch