Commissioner of Police v Lawson

[2024] NZHC 3681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2021-441-69

[2024] NZHC 3681

IN THE MATTER

of an application pursuant to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009

BETWEEN

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Applicant

AND

KEITH RONALD LAWSON

Respondent

Hearing:	4 December 2024
Appearances:	M J M Mitchell for Applicant S Jefferson for Respondent
Judgment:	5 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[1]    The Commissioner of the New Zealand Police (Commissioner) applies for a profit forfeiture order against Mr Lawson under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act). Mr Lawson was convicted of methamphetamine dealing in 2022. The Commissioner says Mr Lawson unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity to the value of $638,814.58.  The  Commissioner  seeks  the  forfeiture  of Mr Lawson’s property in Napier, valued at $295,000.

[2]    Mr Lawson accepts that he has been involved in methamphetamine dealing but argues that the Commissioner’s calculation of the benefit of his criminal activity is inaccurate, and that a profit forfeiture order in the sum sought by the Commissioner would result in undue hardship to him.

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v LAWSON [2024] NZHC 3681 [5 December 2024]

[3]    For the reasons set out below, I grant the Commissioner’s application and dismiss Mr Lawson’s application for an order excluding property from the profit forfeiture order.

Background

[4]    In November 2019 the Eastern District Organised Crime Unit commenced “Operation Casino” targeting the activities of an organised criminal group involved in the sale and distribution of methamphetamine and cannabis in the Hawke’s Bay area. During this investigation Police began intercepting the private communications of an associate of Mr Lawson and Mr Lawson’s own text message data. Analysis of the intercepted communications revealed Mr Lawson supplied methamphetamine to unknown persons.

[5]    On 24 September 2020, Police executed a search warrant at Mr Lawson’s home address at 1/201 Kennedy Road, Napier (the Property). Police located an indoor cannabis growing operation. A notebook recorded projected yields and returns for the cannabis as between $25,200 and $67,000.

[6]    A “tick list” detailing drug purchases, sales and associated information was found in Mr Lawson’s bedroom with figures consistent with what is said to be the known price of methamphetamine. Three further notebooks were found containing figures and abbreviations consistent with common methamphetamine pricing. Police also located a “tally” sheet (the Tally). The Tally recorded methamphetamine transactions beginning in August 2019, which were corroborated by text message and polling data.

[7]    Mr Lawson was arrested on 24 September 2020. He was charged with supply of methamphetamine;1 and cultivating cannabis.2

1      Pursuant to s 6(1)(c) and 2(a) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Maximum penalty life imprisonment.

2      Pursuant to s 9 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975. Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.

[8]    On 13 June 2022, Mr Lawson pleaded  guilty  to  cultivating  cannabis.  On 11 November 2022, he pleaded guilty to supplying 816 grams of methamphetamine.

On 2 February 2023 he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.3

[9]    On 21 October 2021, an on-notice restraining order over the Property was granted by consent without prejudice to the position of either the Commissioner or Mr Lawson in a future forfeiture proceeding. The order was extended on various dates and remains in force until 2 February 2025 or the determination of the Commissioner’s application for a profit forfeiture order, whichever is sooner.4 In accordance with the order, the Property is restrained and held under the Official Assignee’s custody and control.

The application

[10]   On 25 September 2023, the Commissioner applied for a profit forfeiture order on the grounds that:

(a)between 1 January 2019 and 24 September 2020, Mr Lawson unlawfully benefitted to the value of $638,814.58 from significant criminal activity, namely the sale of methamphetamine; and

(b)Mr Lawson owns the Property.

[11]Mr Lawson opposes the application.

[12]   The Commissioner has filed two affidavits from Detective Philip Sayers affirmed on 28 August 2023 and 9 August 2024 respectively and Mr Lawson has filed an affidavit affirmed on 26 July 2024. I record that  neither  party  required  Detective Sayers or Mr Lawson for cross-examination.

3      R v Lawson [2022] NZDC 1782.

4      R v Lawson CIV-2021-441-69, 17 October 2024 (Minute of McHerron J).

The relevant law

[13]   Counsel for Mr Lawson, Mr Jefferson, accepts the approach to be taken by the Court in dealing with this  matter is as set out in the submissions  advanced by      Ms Mitchell for the Commissioner. It is convenient to adopt much of that discussion below.

[14]   The Act provides a regime for the confiscation and forfeiture of certain property where a causal nexus between the acquisition of that property and significant criminal activity can be established.

[15]   Parliament’s intention in instituting the regime is described at s 3 of the Act as follows:

…

(2)The criminal proceeds and instruments forfeiture regime established under this Act proposes to—

(a)eliminate the chance for persons to profit from undertaking or being associated with significant criminal activity; and

(b)deter significant criminal activity; and

(c)reduce the ability of criminals and persons associated with crime or significant criminal activity to continue or expand criminal enterprise;

…

[16]   Although dependent on evidence of criminal activity, the proceedings are civil in nature and the evidence need not be such as would sustain criminal charges.

[17]   The standard of proof with respect to the criteria for the various forfeiture orders is that of the balance of probabilities.5 As such, all that is required is for the Commissioner to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that the criteria for forfeiture are present in any given case.

[18]   Section 55 of the Act sets out the criteria for the grant of a profit forfeiture order as follows:

5      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, ss 50, 50C, 53 and 55.

55       Making profit forfeiture order

(1)The High Court must make a profit forfeiture order if it is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that—

(a)the respondent has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity within the relevant period of criminal activity; and

(b)the respondent has interests in property.

(2)The order must specify—

(a)the value of the benefit determined in accordance with section 53; and

(b)the maximum recoverable amount determined in accordance with section 54; and

(c)the property that is to be disposed of in accordance with section 83(1), being property in which the respondent has, or is treated as having, interests.

1. Subsections (1) and (2) are subject to section 56.

(4)A profit forfeiture order is enforceable as an order made as a result of civil proceedings instituted by the Crown against the person to recover a debt due to it, and the maximum recoverable amount is recoverable from the respondent by the Official Assignee on behalf of the Crown as a debt due to the Crown.

[19]“Unlawful benefit” is defined in s 7 of the Act as follows:

7Meaning of unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, a person has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity if the person has knowingly, directly or indirectly, derived a benefit from significant criminal activity (whether or not that person undertook or was involved in the significant criminal activity).

[20]‘Significant criminal activity’ is defined in s 6 of the Act as follows:

6        Meaning of significant criminal activity

(1)In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, significant criminal activity means an activity engaged in by a person that if proceeded against as a criminal offence would amount to offending—

(a)that consists of, or includes, 1 or more offences punishable by a maximum term of imprisonment of 5 years or more; or

(b)from which property, proceeds, or benefits of a value of the threshold amount or more have, directly or indirectly, been acquired or derived.

(2)A person is undertaking an activity of the kind described in subsection

(1) whether or not—

(a)the person has been charged with or convicted of an offence in connection with the activity; or

(b)the person has been acquitted of an offence in connection with the activity; or

(c)the person's conviction for an offence in connection with the activity has been quashed or set aside.

(3)Any expenses or outgoings used in connection with an activity of the kind described in subsection (1) must be disregarded for the purposes of calculating the value of any property, proceeds, or benefits under subsection (1)(b).

[21]   As such, following the established process for determination of applications of this nature,6 the first step for the Court is to determine whether it is more likely than not that the respondent has knowingly derived a benefit from activity that, if charged as a criminal offence, would be punishable by a term of imprisonment of five years or more.

[22]   In the present case, Mr Lawson has accepted deriving a benefit from the supply of methamphetamine (an offence punishable by life imprisonment), thereby satisfying the requirements of s 55(1)(a) of the Act.

[23]   In respect of s 55(1)(b), (establishing that the respondent has interests in property), it is not disputed in the present case that Mr Lawson is the owner of the residential property at 1/201 Kennedy Road, Napier.

[24]As such, the raw criteria for a profit forfeiture order are prima facie made out.

[25]   Accordingly, the next consideration for the Court is a determination of the value of the unlawful benefit. Section 53 of the Act reads as follows:

6      As described in Commissioner of Police v Irwin [2020] NZHC 1370 at [9] and [10], citing Pulman v Commissioner of Police HC Auckland, CIV-2010-404-5666, 27 May 2011.

53       Value of benefit presumed to be value in application

(1)If the Commissioner proves, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent has, in the relevant period of criminal activity, unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity, the value of that benefit is presumed to be the value stated in—

(i)the application under section 52(c); or

(ii)if the case requires, the amended application.

(2)The presumption stated in subsection (1) may be rebutted by the respondent on the balance of probabilities.

[26]   The effect of the above is that the value of the unlawful benefit in the present case is assumed to be $638,814.58 (as set out in the Commissioner’s notice of application), unless Mr Lawson can establish that it is more likely than not to be a lower figure.

[27]   The resolution of a dispute regarding the value of an unlawful benefit was described by the Court of Appeal in Zhou v Commissioner of Police as follows:7

… we [re]iterate the observations of this Court in Cheah v Commissioner of Police, in which it was explained that the statutory presumption in s 53(1) of the Act means that once the Commissioner has assessed the unlawful benefit obtained by an offender, the onus switches to the offender to prove the actual benefit. This will normally require much more than a critique of the Commissioner's methodology. Genuine evidence concerning the actual benefit obtained needs to be put forward by the offender if he or she is to rebut the presumption.

[28]   Any expenses or outgoings must be disregarded in determining the value of the unlawful benefit, with the figure relating to gross proceeds or receipts as opposed to profit as it might be understood in the accounting sense.8

Analysis

[29]   Two issues arise between the parties. The first relates to the quantum of the unlawful benefit Mr Lawson received. The second relates to whether Mr Lawson will suffer undue hardship from the forfeiture of the Property. I deal with each in turn.

7      Zhou v Commissioner of Police [2023] NZCA 137 at [30], citing Cheah v Commissioner of Police

[2020] NZCA 253.

8      Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, s 6(3); Commissioner of Police v Slessor [2022] NZHC 3511 at [64].

The quantum of the unlawful benefit

[30]   As identified above, the onus is on Mr Lawson to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the amount stated by the Commissioner in the application for a profit forfeiture order is not correct.

[31]   The Commissioner relies on the two affidavits of Detective Sayers which detail the method used by the Commissioner  to  calculate  the  unlawful  benefit.  Detective Sayers says that Police had two records of Mr Lawson’s methamphetamine activities: the Tally found in Mr Lawson’s home and text message data.

[32]   Detective Sayers explains that the Tally shows that Mr Lawson purchased methamphetamine on 24 occasions, totalling  22.5 ounces.  The  Tally  shows  that Mr Lawson was purchasing an ounce of methamphetamine for between $8,000 and

$11,000. The Tally records that Mr Lawson paid $197,125 for the methamphetamine and received $138,000 from on-supplying it to his customers, leaving $58,825 owing to him. This is the evidential foundation for the statement in the summary of facts, to which Mr Lawson  pleaded  guilty,  that  for  the  period  from  1 January 2019  to  30 September 2019 (the nine-month period), 22 ounces or 616 grams of methamphetamine is attributable to Mr Lawson as being in his possession for the purpose of supply.

[33]   The Police have then used the volumes of methamphetamine set out in the Tally to determine the average weekly supplies by Mr Lawson. Detective Sayers says that the dated entries in the Tally indicate that Mr Lawson purchased eight ounces of methamphetamine over a five-week period between 11 August and 16 September, which is an average of 1.6 ounces per week.

[34]   The remaining 14.5 ounces on the Tally are not dated. Using the average 1.6-ounce figure, Detective Sayers calculates that this equates to nine weeks’ worth of purchases, leading him to conclude that the Tally is a record of 14 weeks of transactions, assuming purchases were made at the same frequency before the five- week dated period.

[35]   Detective Sayers says that if the average quantity from the five-week period is instead averaged over the nine-month period of offending  acknowledged through  Mr Lawson’s guilty plea, this results in a conservative average weekly supply of

0.57 ounces of methamphetamine.

[36]   Text messages show Mr Lawson continued to purchase methamphetamine over the period from 3 August 2019 to 8 June 2020 (the summary of facts records that the total amount of methamphetamine attributable to Mr Lawson based on the text message data is 200 grams). Text  messaging data up until Mr Lawson’s  arrest on   24 September 2020 show that he kept communicating with an associate about sourcing methamphetamine.

[37]   Detective Sayers says there is a six week overlap between the text messaging data and the Tally and this  shows  that  the  text  data  only  recorded  a  subset  of Mr Lawson’s true criminal activity. The Commissioner submits that the Tally therefore provides a more accurate representation of the scale of activity.

[38]   Detective Sayers has analysed Mr Lawson’s text messaging data in relation to the price for which he offered to supply various weights of methamphetamine. There were 14 offers made, at differing prices and weights. Using all the offer figures, Detective Sayers determined that on average Mr Lawson was selling an ounce of methamphetamine for $15,194.

[39]   Applying the figure of supplying 0.57 ounces a week to the 51-week period of methamphetamine offending by Mr Lawson that the Tally does not cover, means the period between 1 October 2019 and 24 September 2020 (the duration of text messaging data excluding the four-week overlap with the Tally) equates to 30.2 ounces of methamphetamine. Using the average ounce sale price of $15,194, 29.07 ounces equates to $441,689.58.9

[40]   Detective Sayers then calculates the overall quantum by adding $441,689.58. to the sales recorded in the Tally for the period of 1 January 2019 to 30 September

9      Detective Sayers has set out similar equations using the 1.6-ounce average figure for weekly supply, but it is not necessary to detail those in the judgment.

2020, which was $197,125. This results in figure of $683,814.58. Detective Sayers believes Mr Lawson unlawfully benefitted from at least this sum.

[41]   Ms Mitchell says that the Commissioner is entitled to ask the Court to conclude that the scale of the significant criminal activity was greater than what could be established to the criminal standard of proof. Ms Mitchell submits despite the text messages proving beyond reasonable doubt  discrete  transactions  totalling  only  200 grams of further sales, the Court may rely on the average sales indicated by the Tally establishing, on the balance of probabilities, the true scale of the offending.

[42]   Mr Lawson’s position as to the quantum of the unlawful benefit is that there was “no way” that the total figure arrived at by the Commissioner was a profit to him. He says that he could “buy a gram of methamphetamine for $350 and sell it for $450” resulting in a profit of $100 per gram. He pleaded guilty to selling 816 grams of methamphetamine, and this, he says, should be the total amount used to calculate the profit he received. Accordingly, he says his profit on 816 grams was $81,600 and he accepts that $81,600 is the amount that should be forfeited. Mr Lawson suggests the Commissioner has double counted, given the overlap between the text messaging data and the 51-week period.

[43]   Mr Lawson explains that his dealing allowed him to sustain an addiction, therefore the shortfall recorded on the Tally was not unpaid debts from purchasers, but rather what he consumed over the period of his offending. He says he still owes this sum to his supplier. Mr Lawson says he did not obtain funds from the dealing that allowed him to lead a lavish lifestyle or buy assets or property. He says he had a boarder paying him $200 cash per week and he used this money for everyday living expenses. Mr Lawson also says that he purchased methamphetamine on credit and that there were times during the Covid lockdown when there was no methamphetamine availability.

[44]   In response, the Commissioner makes two key points. First, in response to  Mr Lawson’s claim that the sale price was $450 per gram, the Commissioner identifies that text messages show Mr Lawson routinely obtained a higher price per gram. The Commissioner submits that the text message data is a more reliable guide to the sale

prices achieved by Mr Lawson than his assertions after the fact. The Commissioner observes that Mr Lawson does not provide any evidence as to the sale price of $450 per gram.

[45]   In any event the Commissioner points out that even if the Court were to adopt Mr Lawson’s amount and sale price (being 816 grams at $450 per gram, that is

$367,200), the unlawful benefit would still be more than the valuation of the Property at $295,000. This is because the Act specifically provides that “any expenses or outgoings” used in connection with the unlawful activity must be disregarded for the purposes of calculating the value of the benefit received.10 Therefore, if it was accepted that Mr Lawson had a sale price of $450 per gram, the total benefit would be $450 per gram, not, as he submitted, $100 per gram.

[46]   Second, the Commissioner relies on evidence from Detective Sayers that intercepted communications show that Mr Lawson was both able to buy methamphetamine other than on credit and sell it during Covid-19 lockdown periods. The Commissioner also refers to the financial analysis undertaken by Police which suggests Mr Lawson has had unexplained cash income of over $70,000. Although Mr Lawson has sought to explain this by reference to having a boarder, he has provided no verifiable evidence of such an arrangement, and I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that such an arrangement is established and explains the cash income.

[47]   Mr Lawson does not point to any specific evidence as to why his assessment of the benefit obtained from his criminal activity is correct. Rather, he repeats that the Commissioner’s calculations are incorrect. For example, in relation to the estimated average price, he says that “as the Tally shows, the estimated overall average price of

$15,194 is far more than I ever in fact received” but does not provide any other evidence from which to correctly assess the average price.

[48]   I accept that the Commissioner is entitled to contend that the extent of criminal activity was greater than that found beyond reasonable doubt by a Judge for sentencing

10     Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, s 6(3).

purposes.11 I am satisfied that the Commissioner has properly explained the basis for the assessment of Mr Lawson’s drug dealing beyond the offending for which he was charged. In particular, I do not consider there is any double counting in the Commissioner’s approach, given the Commissioner’s calculation of quantum of dealing from the Tally rather than the text messaging data. Mr Lawson does not provide any evidence that he did only make $100 per gram, and that $81,600 was the full extent of the unlawful benefit of his criminal offending. Mr Lawson’s reference to money he says he owes his supplier is also irrelevant to the calculation of the benefit.12

[49]   I am satisfied that Mr Lawson has not proven on the balance of probabilities that the Commissioner’s assessment of the unlawful benefit should be displaced for a lower figure. It follows then that the sum of $638,814.58 is the value of the unlawful benefit in terms of s 53 of the Act.

[50]   I am required by s 54 of the Act to also determine the maximum recoverable amount by deducting from the unlawful benefit figure the value of any property subject to an asset forfeiture order. In the present case, no asset forfeiture orders have been made or are in contemplation, and as such the maximum recoverable amount will be the full sum of the unlawful benefit figure.

Undue hardship

[51]   The next issue for determination is whether Mr Lawson’s application for property to be excluded from the profit forfeiture order because of undue hardship should be granted.

[52]   Section 56 of the Act allows the Court to consider a claim by a respondent for exclusion of property for forfeiture on the grounds of undue hardship:

56 Exclusion of respondent’s property from profit forfeiture order because of undue hardship

(1)The High Court may, on an application made by the respondent before a profit forfeiture order is made, exclude certain property from being able to be realised under section 55(2)(c) if it considers that, having

11     Commissioner of Police v He [2022] NZHC 533 at [43], citing Commissioner of Police v Filer

[2013] NZHC 3111 at [42].

12     Commissioner of Police v Slessor, above n 8 at [64].

regard to all of the circumstances, undue hardship is reasonably likely to be caused to the respondent if the property were realised.

(2)The circumstances the Court may have regard to under subsection (1) include, without limitation,—

(a)the use that is ordinarily made, or was intended to be made, of the property that is, or is proposed to be, the subject of the profit forfeiture order; and

(b)the nature and extent of the respondent’s interest in the property; and

(c)the circumstances of the significant criminal activity to which the profit forfeiture order relates.

(3)After a profit forfeiture order is made, nothing in this section prohibits a respondent from realising the property that was excluded from being able to be realised under section 55(2)(c) if—

(a)after realising other property under that section there is still a debt owed to the Crown under section 55(4); and

(b)the respondent agrees to realise the excluded property in order to pay all or part of that debt.

[53]   The relevant principles applicable to such applications have been described by the Court of Appeal in Cheah v Commissioner of Police as follows:13

[64]   The threshold for relief under s 56 is high. Hardship for offenders and third parties is to be expected. For the Court to grant relief an applicant must show not merely inconvenience or difficulty, but that any hardship will be so disproportionate as to require the objectives of recovery and deterrence to be subordinated to the particular needs of the wrongdoer.

[65]  The loss of equity in a home acquired from legitimate sources before the criminal activity, and the consequent prospect the respondent will need to rely on State assistance for housing, has been held not to constitute undue hardship; the risk of losing a home ought to have been contemplated at the time the respondent embarked on the criminal activity.

[54]   Mr Lawson says that a forfeiture figure beyond $81,600 would cause him undue hardship. During his offending he was unable to work due to addiction and poor health. Upon release, he says that he will be unable to work due to health issues (of which evidence is given) and will be unable to purchase another home. Mr Lawson says he would suffer undue hardship as he would have to rely solely on income support. He says he has no other family or income to support him.

13     Cheah v Commissioner of Police above n 13.

[55]   The Commissioner does not accept that the forfeiture orders would result in undue hardship for Mr Lawson. The Commissioner says that Mr Lawson’s reliance on a benefit as his sole source of income does not meet the high threshold of hardship required to establish a claim for exclusion. Further, the offending was serious and not the first offending of its kind by Mr Lawson. Given these circumstances, the Commissioner says there is no severe disproportion between the loss of the total value of the Property ($295,000) and the gravity of Mr Lawson’s offending (with a maximum recoverable amount of $638,814.58), such that would override the legislative objectives of recovery and deterrence.

[56]   I agree the circumstances of the  significant  criminal  activity  are  serious. Mr Lawson was found guilty of supplying a significant amount of methamphetamine, and, as discussed above, there is evidence of further supply of methamphetamine for which he was not charged. Mr Lawson was sentenced to imprisonment for six years for the recent offending. Mr Lawson was previously sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for similar drug offending.

[57]   I accept that losing the Property would cause hardship to Mr Lawson given that, on release, he will be solely reliant on State support given his inability to work for health reasons. But this is not enough, as the Court of Appeal observed in similar circumstances:14

… There is little doubt that the loss of equity in the Great North Road property will cause hardship to Mr Cheah. He will lose his home. While there is no direct evidence on this point, it seems reasonable to infer he will struggle to secure employment given his age and circumstances. He will likely be reliant on financial support from the State. But these factors, taken singly or in combination do not persuade us that he will suffer undue hardship for the purposes of s 56.

[58]   Accordingly, I am not satisfied that Mr Lawson’s reliance on income support constitutes undue hardship. Nor do I consider Mr Lawson’s health issues alter the position in his favour. Further, I am satisfied it is not a disproportionate consequence of his offending. It would be contrary to the principles of the Act to allow Mr Lawson to retain the benefit of his criminal activity by keeping the house.

14 At [73].

[59]   I also note that if the house was excluded from the profit forfeiture order, the order itself would have no effect, given the assessed unlawful benefit is $638,814.58 and the value of the house is $295,000.

[60]   As acknowledged by counsel, Mr Lawson’s application is in effect for a portion of profits from the sale of the Property, given his acceptance that $81,600 is a sum properly forfeited. As Ms Mitchell observed, an order for exclusion of property usually prevents that property from being realised to meet the maximum recoverable amount specified in the profit forfeiture order. Here, the suggestion is that part of the value of otherwise realisable property can be ring-fenced for Mr Lawson. Ms Mitchell submits that there are likely difficulties with such an approach, not least because it would create significant difficulties for the Official Assignee in any future actions to recover the outstanding debt that would follow making a profit forfeiture order.

[61]   As I have concluded that undue hardship will not be reasonably likely to be caused to Mr Lawson if the Property is realised, I do not need to reach any conclusion on this issue.

Conclusion and orders

[62]   The Commissioner’s application is granted. Mr Lawson’s application for the exclusion of property pursuant to s 56 of the Act is dismissed.

[63]I make the following orders:

(a)The value of the benefit determined in accordance with s 53 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 is $638,814.58.

(b)The maximum recoverable amount pursuant to s 44 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 is $638,814.58.

(c)The following property is to be realised:

(i)1/201 Kennedy Road, Napier.

All interests in the property at 1/201 Kennedy Road, Napier registered in the name of the respondent, being a leasehold—

1/3 share of 766m2 Lot 50 DP 6391 and lease of Flat 1 DP 12484 more particularly described in records of title HBD3/854 and HBD3/857.

McQueen J

Solicitors:

Elvidge & Partners, Napier for Applicant