Commissioner of Police v Nicholas
[2024] NZHC 1317
•23 May 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAURANGA REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TAURANGA MOANA ROHE
CIV-2010-470-360
[2024] NZHC 1317
UNDER Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 BETWEEN
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Applicant
AND
VALENTINE BARCLAY NICHOLAS
First Respondent
SHEILA PETRINA PAYNE
Second RespondentContinued:…/2
Hearing: 24 April 2024 (further submissions filed on 1 May 2024) Appearances:
S Earl and C F Hodgson for Official Assignee
Judgment:
23 May 2024
JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J
This judgment was delivered by me on 23/05/2024 at 4.30pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.
………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors: MC, Auckland
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v NICHOLAS [2024] NZHC 1317 [23 May 2024]
Continued…
WILLIAM FRANCES NICHOLAS
Third Respondent
BRETT ANTHONY GEORGE, KARYN JANE
GEORGE AND VLN TRUSTEE LTD as trustees of the BA & KJ GEORGE TRUST
Fourth Respondents
CLINTON MILLS
Fifth Respondent
Introduction
[1] The Official Assignee (OA) applies pursuant to s 59 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 (the Act) for further directions to give effect to a profit forfeiture order initially made by Hinton J on 17 August 2016,1 and subsequently confirmed by Woolford J on 5 July 2018.2
[2] The OA seeks directions relating to three properties at Maketū Road registered to Mr Nicholas (the Maketū Properties),3 and directions relating to Mr Nicholas’ half share in an eight-hectare property at Odey Road, Whakamārama (the Whakamārama Property).
[3] The OA also seeks directions relating to confidentiality, and an administrative amendment to a direction made by Hinton J on 17 August 2016 relating to execution of relevant deeds and instruments for the purpose of disposing of the Maketū Properties and Mr Nicholas’ interest in the Whakamārama Property.
[4] The directions sought in respect of the Maketū Properties are intended to gain possession of the properties and permit whatever steps necessary to maintain possession. The OA seeks directions that would permit removal of any structures and the erection of fences. The OA also seeks directions enabling him to take whatever steps necessary to dispose of the Maketū Properties including gifting them or selling them below market value.
[5] In respect of Mr Nicholas’ half share in the Whākamarama Property, directions are sought to enable the OA to offer potentially interested parties first and second options to purchase the interest with a backstop direction to take whatever steps necessary to dispose of that interest including by gifting or selling below market value.
1 The Commissioner of Police v Nicholas [2016] NZHC 1913 [Orders Judgment].
2 The Commissioner of Police v Nicholas HC Tauranga CIV-2010-470-360, 5 July 2018 [Woolford J Minute].
3 The properties being 631, 633, and 634 Maketū Road.
[6] The OA has been unable to dispose of the properties to date — due to Mr Nicholas’ obstruction and lack of cooperation with the OA.
[7] The OA submits that the further directions are necessary to give effect to the profit forfeiture order. Without the further orders the efficacy of the profit forfeiture order is undermined.
Procedural history
[8] On 17 August 2016, Hinton J determined that Mr Nicholas and his partner, Ms Payne, had unlawfully benefitted from significant criminal activity namely the supply of drugs, money laundering and benefit fraud. Hinton J made an assets forfeiture order in respect of a forestry block and a profit forfeiture order directing the Maketū Properties and the half share in the Whākamarama Property be disposed of to satisfy the profit forfeiture order.4
[9] The maximum recoverable amount was $1.17 million less any funds received from the disposal of the forestry block.
[10] On 19 October 2017, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Nicholas’ appeal in respect of 631 and 634 Maketū Road but allowed the appeal in respect of 633 Maketū Road and the Whakamārama Property.5 The matter was remitted to the High Court to hear evidence about any undue hardship caused by the forfeiture of the Whakamārama Property and 633 Maketū Road.6
[11] Mr Nicholas did not file any application for relief. Nor did he comply with timetabling orders regarding the filing of any application for relief.
[12] As a result, on 5 July 2018, Woolford J made an order that 633 Maketū Road and the Whakamārama Property were subject to the profit forfeiture order originally made by Hinton J.7
4 Orders Judgment, above n 1, at [150]–[153].
5 Nicholas v Commissioner of Police [2017] NZCA 473 [Appeal Judgment].
6 At [77].
7 Woolford J Minute, above n 2, at [20].
[13] On 26 July 2018, Mr Nicholas filed a document described as a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal advising that he wanted it treated as an application to recall the Court of Appeal’s decision. That application was declined.8
[14] On 10 September 2019, following the expiry of all appeal rights, the OA sold the forestry block subject to the asset forfeiture order. That sale resulted in an outstanding maximum recoverable amount of $914,445.
[15] On 29 July 2020, Mr Nicholas bought proceedings in the Māori Land Court seeking to prevent the OA from entering and going on to the Maketū Properties and Whakamārama Property. Mr Nicholas’ application was dismissed.
[16] On 8 September 2020, Mr Nicholas filed an appeal against the dismissal of his injunction application. The Māori Appellate Court dismissed the appeal.9 Costs were awarded against Mr Nicholas in both the Māori Land Court and Māori Appellate Court.10
[17] Since then, the OA has been attempting, unsuccessfully, to sell the Maketū Properties. The properties themselves are described as idyllic but the value is affected by the presence of Mr Nicholas who refuses to vacate or give access to agents or potential purchasers.
[18] The application for further ancillary orders, with an affidavit of Paul Murray Sorensen in support, was filed on 26 January 2024. The documents were served on Mr Nicholas on 19 February 2024. An affidavit of service dated 23 February 2024 from Stephen Anthony West was filed on 28 February 2024.
[19] Mr Nicholas did not appear at the first call of the matter on 12 March 2024 and appears to have taken no steps in relation to the application. The matter was therefore set down for formal proof.
8 Nicholas v Commissioner of Police [2019] NZCA 37 [Recall Judgment].
9 Nicholas v The Official Assignee – Lot 6 DP 34349 [2021] Māori Appellate Court MB 228 (2021 APPEAL 228).
10 Nicholas v The Official Assignee – Lot 6 DP 34349 (2021) 260 Waiariki MB 123 (260 WAR 123); and Nicholas v The Official Assignee – Lot 6 Deposited Plan South Auckland 34349 [2021] Māori Appellate Court MB 312 (2021 APPEAL 312).
Factual background
[20]I adopt the background set out in the applicant’s submissions.
[21] One week after Hinton J made the assets and profit forfeiture orders, the OA was alerted by police to a Facebook post that threatened that the properties may be destroyed. The Facebook post was made by “Motorcycle Clubs New Zealand” on 22 August 2016 and stated:
FUCK YOU CUNTS!!
…
Sweetas then Smash the Fuckers all up and Burn the Forestry Block down then!!
Fucken ASSHOLES
He gets found NOT Guilty and the Cunts can STILL pull this BULLSHIT!!! WTF??
…
[22] The Facebook post included emojis of a pig, a knife, a police officer, a gun, a police car and a bomb.
[23] Police advised the OA of the threats and the OA ceased internal inspections of the properties, inspecting them only by external or drive-by inspections.
[24] Following the expiry of appeal rights, the OA began engaging with Mr Nicholas in November 2019 regarding the process for selling the Maketū Properties.
[25] Initially, Mr Nicholas and Ms Payne were told by the OA that they could continue to reside at 631–633 Maketū Road, but the OA reserved the right to evict them if necessary. The OA suggested that Mr Nicholas would be given 42 days’ notice to vacate, but he may be able to re-negotiate his tenancy with a new owner.
[26] Mr Nicholas responded to the November 2019 letter, expressing his opposition to the proposed sale of the Maketū Properties. He suggested that the OA’s solicitors
were aiding and abetting fraud and theft, and that an “interlocutory injunction has been placed on the property”. No such injunction was sought or placed on the property.
[27] On 18 June 2020, the OA advised Mr Nicholas and Ms Payne that their right to occupy 631–633 Maketū Road had been terminated, and that the OA required vacant possession on 18 September 2020.
[28] Mr Nicholas and Ms Payne did not provide vacant possession by 18 September 2020. Instead:
(a)Mr Nicholas sent police a document, dated 21 June 2020, purportedly pursuant to “The Preamble, s 253, s 2, s 5 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993”, complaining about service of the letters requesting vacant possession. Photographs of OA agents were included in that document.
(b)Solicitors for the OA received a notice from the “Te Arawa Waka Native District Māori Incorporation Native Court of Assessors”, dated 22 June 2020, which purported to grant proprietary estoppel.
(c)On 29 July 2020, Mr Nicholas filed an application for an injunction in the Māori Land Court.
(d)On 18 September 2020, there was a protest on the land with numerous people present and protesting against its forfeiture. That protest was publicised in the media.
[29] At the protest, media reported that Mr Nicholas and his supporters stated that the land was inherited and “they won’t move”. Mr Nicholas’ brother, William Nicholas said that he did not want the dispute to be seen as “gang-related” but said:
[Mr Nicholas] could have had a couple of hundred gangsters here if he’d wanted, but he doesn’t want that.
[30]Mr Nicholas is well known as a senior figure in the Mongrel Mob.
[31] Between 18 September 2020 and 12 August 2022, the OA continued to engage with real estate agents to sell the Maketū Properties. Due to the ongoing litigation in the Māori Appellate Court, no agreements were formalised until after 18 June 2021. Real estate agents expressed concern about the risks relating to access, health and safety, Mr Nicholas’ Mongrel Mob affiliation, and potential staff intimidation.
[32] A real estate agent company was engaged on 2 August 2022. Since that date it has been trying to sell the Maketū Properties for the OA.
[33] On 12 August 2022, the OA’s solicitors wrote to Mr Nicholas again, advising him that his right to occupy the properties was terminated. Mr Nicholas continued to occupy the properties.
[34] The OA advises that Mr Nicholas has prevented the Maketū Properties from being connected to reticulated sewage as requested by the local council. He has also enabled a further structure to be built on 631–633 Maketū Road without appropriate council consents. The OA was notified of the construction of this building in September 2023.
[35] As of 19 January 2024, a total of $129,469.47 in District Council and Regional Council rates were owed by Mr Nicholas for the Maketū Properties. He also owed
$5,117.14 in water rates.
The value of the estate
[36]The capital values of the Maketū Properties are:
(a)$520,000 for 631 Maketū Road;
(b)$750,000 for 633 Maketū Road; and
(c)$485,000 for 634 Maketū Road.
[37] The market value currently appears to be significantly below the capital value largely because Mr Nicholas shows no sign of vacating the Maketū Properties or
enabling access to them. Anyone engaged to assist the sale of the properties receives notices that the sale is opposed. Mr Nicholas’ gang connections are also a likely factor.
[38] Offers have been made in respect of the Maketū Properties in October 2022, December 2022 and June 2023. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, the exact amount of those offers is not set out in this judgment.
[39] On 10 September 2019, the forestry block subject to the assets forfeiture order was sold for $255,555. Net proceeds of $235,418.49 were paid into the OA’s trust account.
[40] As of 16 April 2024, the value of the estate excluding the Maketū Properties and the Whakamārama Property is $298,606.74. This includes the funds realised on the sale of the forestry block, bank funds and cash, realised vehicles and current value of shares that have not yet been realised but continue to accumulate dividends.
[41]As of 16 April 2024, the OA’s costs for this matter total $395,743.37.
[42] Mr Nicholas has a legal aid debt of $129,308.68. Mr Nicholas and his partner have total fines owing of $1,767.
Legal principles
[43] Section 59(1)(b) of the Act empowers the Court to give any directions that may be necessary and convenient for giving effect to a civil forfeiture order. Section 59 is “a mechanical provision which enables the Court to make ancillary orders to give effect to the Court’s own orders”.11 Directions under s 59 are made where such direction becomes necessary to give effect to the forfeiture order.12
[44] The Maketū Properties and the half share in the Whākamarama Property are subject to a profit forfeiture order rather than an asset forfeiture order. The Act
11 Commissioner of Police v Slessor [2022] NZHC 3511 at [94].
12 Commissioner of New Zealand Police v Rowland [2020] NZHC 791; and Commissioner of Police v Nicol [2021] NZHC 1330.
requires the OA to dispose of the property specified in the order and apply money resulting from the disposal as subscribed by s 83(1) of the Act.13
[45]Under that section, payments are made as follows:14
(a)Costs recoverable by the Official Assignee under s 87.
(b)Payment of any legal aid debt owed by Mr Nicholas to the legal services commissioner.
(c)Payment in order of priority any of the following amounts imposed on Mr Nicholas:15
(i)any amount of reparation (as defined in s 79 of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957);
(ii)any offender levy (as defined in s 79 of the Summary Proceedings Act); and
(iii)any other type of fine (as defined in s 79 of the Summary Proceedings Act).
(d)Payment to the Crown of the following amount less the sum of the payments made under paragraphs (a)–(c):
(i)If the remaining sum is equal to, or more than, the maximum recoverable amount specified by the Court under s 55, the maximum recoverable amount.
(ii)If the remaining sum is less than the maximum recoverable amount, the entirety of the remaining sum.
13 Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009, s 55(2)(C).
14 Section 83(1).
15 As set out in s 86E of the Summary Proceedings Act 1957.
(e)Any money remaining after the payments have been made is to be paid to Mr Nicholas.
[46] Rule 11.22(1) of the High Court Rules 2016 requires that the property be sold in a way that ensures the best price is obtained for it unless the Court directs otherwise.
[47]Rule 11.22 of the High Court Rules states:
(1)Property to be sold because of a direction in a judgment or order must be sold in a way that ensures that the best price is obtained for it, unless the court directs otherwise.
(2)The court may do any 1 or more of the following, when giving the judgment or making the order or at a later time:
(a)give directions about the method of the sale:
(b)give directions about the terms and conditions of sale:
(c)if the sale is by auction,—
(i)fix a reserve price, if appropriate; and
(ii)define the rights of parties to bid at the sale.
(3)All parties must co-operate in effecting the sale of the property and do everything necessary to give effect to the sale, including signing any documents required to transfer or convey the property to the purchaser.
(4)To effect the sale of the property, the court may—
(a)give all necessary directions, including directions in relation to the transfer or conveyance of the property sold; and
(b)appoint a person to sign any documents required to transfer or convey to the purchaser the property sold.
[48] Section 55(4) of the Act provides that a profit forfeiture order is enforceable as an order made as a result of civil proceedings instituted by the Crown against the respondent to recover a debt. The maximum recoverable amount is recoverable by the OA as a debt due to the Crown.
Discussion
[49] When making the profit forfeiture order, Hinton J directed that the properties be “realised”. At [157] Hinton J also reserved leave to the parties to apply for further
orders. There has therefore been an order that the properties be sold, and an ancillary order granting leave to apply for further orders under s 59 of the Act. This is not a situation where the time for the making of ancillary orders has passed.
[50] The requirement in r 11.22 that property be sold in a way that ensures the best price is protective of Mr Nicholas’ residual interest. Any money available over and above the amount forfeited to the Crown will revert to him. The orders sought would permit the OA to sell the Maketū Properties at below market value and to gift or sell Mr Nicholas’ share in the Whākamarama Property below market value. That would reduce the amount potentially payable to Mr Nicholas.
[51] The OA acknowledges that gifting or selling the properties below market value may also impact the funds available for any s 83 payments. However, no reparation is required to be made to any third parties. The Legal Services Commissioner can independently enforce the debt owed to Legal Services; and the fines owed by Mr Nicholas and his partner are relatively modest.
[52] The OA says that, whilst some public bodies may be financially impacted by the properties being gifted or sold below market value, the alternative is to enable Mr Nicholas to continue to occupy the properties undermining the purpose of the Act and the profit forfeiture orders made by Hinton J.
[53] Mr Nicholas has shown no indication that he will vacate the properties voluntarily. He continues to treat the properties as his own and as if relevant regulatory requirements do not apply to him or the properties. It is true that any recipient of the properties is taking on a significant risk in their acquisition.
[54] I also agree that Mr Nicholas’ actions are frustrating the purpose of the forfeiture order. Had he vacated the properties when requested, it is likely that the properties would have been sold and the debt paid. Instead, due to Mr Nicholas’ obstruction of the sale of the Maketū Properties, the costs involved in administering the estate continue and he continues to occupy the properties.
[55] The Whākamarama Property was previously Māori land. As recorded by the Court of Appeal:16
… Had the Whakamārama land not lost its Māori land status, it would not have been alienable without first being offered to members of the Pirirākau hapū.
(footnote omitted)
[56] The OA proposes that the Whākamarama Property be disposed of first by offering it to the other person registered on the title — Mr W Nicholas.
[57] Should Mr W Nicholas decline or fail to exercise the option to purchase his brother’s half share, or if the price is not satisfactory then the OA would offer Mr Nicholas’ share in the property to the Pirirākau hapū.
[58] If neither Mr W Nicholas nor the Pirirākau hapū exercise the option to purchase Mr Nicholas’ share in the Whākamarama Property , the OA seeks a direction that he may take whatever steps necessary to dispose of Mr Nicholas’ interest including gifting or selling it below market value.
[59] The direction enabling gifting or sale below market value is sought for pragmatic reasons. The OA has been administering the estate since 2010. Mr W Nicholas will retain a half share in the Whākamarama Property and the potential pool of purchasers is therefore very limited.
[60] Mr Nicholas is using threats including his gang affiliation to obstruct the sale of the properties. He is acting as if the law simply does not apply to him. This situation cannot continue. The further directions sought by the OA are necessary to give effect to the profit forfeiture order. The OA is correct in the submission that the making of a profit forfeiture order serves important public purposes.17 Orders made under the Act must be enforced or those purposes are undermined. The OA must be able to dispose of the properties. Mr Nicholas’ actions necessitate the properties being sold below the market value they would attract but for his obstruction of the sale process.
16 Appeal Judgment, above n 5, at [14].
17 Marwood v Commissioner of Police [2016] NZSC 139, [2017] 1 NZLR 260 at [12] referring to s 3 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.
If necessary, they can be gifted - but not to Mr Nicholas himself. That would defeat the purpose of the Act.
[61] The directions aimed at acquiring and maintaining possession do need scrutiny. The prospect of bulldozers moving in to demolish residential dwellings is unappealing. Strong justification would be needed for such a direction. It may well be that demolition of some structures will be necessary to give effect to the order for possession and to enable the OA to dispose of the properties. Some structures are apparently unconsented and may detract from the sale price or make sale impossible. Which structures should be removed is best considered on a case-by-case basis. Removal of consented residential dwellings to prevent Mr Nicholas occupying the land seems unlikely to achieve the immediate aim. It may escalate the situation.
[62] Counsel for the OA has been unable to locate any case where removal of structures has been ordered in these circumstances. There are, however, cases where enforcement action has been taken against persons refusing to vacate land following the making of a possession order.
[63] In Official Assignee v Mathiesen an order for vacant possession of property was made after the respondent was adjudicated bankrupt.18 The respondents barricaded themselves in the property. Arrest warrants were issued together with directions authorising the use of force to evict the respondents and prohibiting the respondents from returning to the property or otherwise interfering with the sale process. One of the respondents was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for contempt.19
[64] In Sillick v Sillick an order was made directing sale of a property pursuant to s 339 of the Property Law Act 2007.20 Consequential orders were granted directing that the property be sold with vacant possession. An order granting authority for the use of force to remove the occupants if the order for vacant possession was not complied with was made under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.
18 The Official Assignee v Mathiesen [2018] NZHC 843, [2018] NZAR 623.
19 The Official Assignee v Mathiesen [2018] NZHC 1441.
20 Sillick v Sillick [2020] NZHC 282.
[65] In this case the OA seeks a direction that he is entitled to possession of the Maketū Properties and may take whatever steps necessary to obtain and maintain possession of the properties including removing any structures and erecting any fences.
[66] A possession order in respect of the Maketū Properties is appropriate but I consider that the proposed orders to enable the OA to take and maintain possession are too wide.
[67] Enforcement of a possession order is available under pt 17 of the High Court Rules. This because under r 19.2(r) applications under the Act are commenced by originating application. It has been held that applications to vary orders made under the Act are also made by way of originating application.21
[68] That may mean that the OA will require recourse to the Court to enforce the possession order, but it reduces the risk of physical confrontation and escalating protests at the properties.
Confidentiality
[69] Section 69 of the Evidence Act 2006 enables the Court to direct that any confidential information should not be disclosed in a proceeding.
[70] Information of a requisite character may be protected as confidential where there is a reasonable expectation of confidentiality.22 The subject matter of confidential information may be commercial.23
[71] In the present case, the OA seeks confidentiality to reserve the bargaining position in respect of the sale of the properties. If the previous offers and counteroffers for the purchase of Maketū Properties were released in the public domain, this would
21 Commissioner of Police v Salter [2021] NZHC 2164 at [5]; and Commissioner of Police v Gong
[2018] NZHC 1686 at [12]–[13].
22 R v X (CA533/2009) [2009] NZCA 531, [2010] 2 NZLR 181 at [48].
23 At [37].
impact the OA’s ability to obtain the best possible price. The information is commercially sensitive and there would usually be an expectation of confidentiality.
[72] Confidentiality orders are appropriate. Such orders will assist the OA to obtain the best price possible. That outcome is in Mr Nicholas’ best interests as he has a right to any money that remains once the debt is paid.
Further orders
[73] One further administrative order is sought namely amending the person able to execute the relevant deeds and instruments when disposing of the properties subject to the order.
[74] The person originally named is no longer a member of the OA’s office. The OA therefore seeks the order to be amended to enable him or any person delegated his powers and functions to execute the relevant deeds or instruments in the name of the registered proprietors of property subject to the application.
Result
[75]The following orders sought by the Official Assignee are granted:
(a)For the purpose of disposing of:
(i)631 Maketū Road, being all that land comprised and described in record of title SA29C/26, South Auckland Land Registry, being 834 square meters more or less being Lot 6 Deposited Plan 34349 (631 Maketū Road);
(ii)633 Maketū Road, being all that land comprised and described in record of title SA29C/25, South Auckland Registry, being 847 square meters more or less being Lot 5 Deposited Plan 34349 (633 Maketū Road);
(iii)634 Maketū Road, being all that land comprised and described in record of title SA1416/66, South Auckland Registry, being
941 square meters more or less being Lot 3 Deposited Plan 18079 (634 Maketū Road); and
(iv)half of the property at Odey Road, Whakamārama, being all that land comprised and described in record of title SA1C/1056, South Auckland Land Registry, being 8.2278 hectares more or less, Oteora 2A1 Block (Mr Nicholas’ interest in the Whakamārama Property).
the OA (including a person delegated his functions and powers under the Act) has the power to execute any deed or instrument in the name of the registered proprietor(s) of the property, and to do anything necessary to give validity and operation to the deed of instrument.
(b)The OA is entitled to possession of:
(i)631 Maketū Road;
(ii)633 Maketū Road; and
(iii)634 Maketū Road.
(c)The OA, when discharging the profit forfeiture order in respect of Mr Nicholas’ interest in the Whakamārama Property, shall give Mr W Nicholas the first option to purchase the property, at market value, that option remaining open for Mr W Nicholas to exercise for three months after the date these orders are made.
(d)The OA, when discharging the profit forfeiture order in respect of Mr Nicholas’ interest in the Whakamārama Property, shall give the Pirirākau hapū the second option to purchase Mr Nicholas’ interest in the Whakamārama Property, at market value, that option remaining open for any member of the Pirirākau hapū to exercise within a further three months, should any of the following circumstances occur:
(i)Mr W Nicholas declines to purchase Mr Nicholas’ interest in the Whakamārama Property;
(ii)Mr W Nicholas fails to exercise the option to purchase Mr Nicholas’ interest in the Whakamārama Property within three months after the date these orders are made; or
(iii)The OA is not satisfied that any purchase price able to be negotiated with Mr W Nicholas represents true market value.
(e)In the event that neither Mr W Nicholas or any member of the Pirirākau hapū purchase Mr Nicholas’ interest in the Whakamārama Property at market value, the OA is entitled to take whatever steps necessary to dispose of Mr Nicholas’ interest in the Whakamārama Property, including gifting it or selling it below market value.
(f)To protect commercially sensitive information, the OA is entitled to redact information about the prices offered and counter-offered for any of the following properties, as set out in the affidavit of Paul Murray Sorensen:
(i)631 Maketū Road;
(ii)633 Maketū Road; and
(iii)634 Maketū Road.
[76] Leave is reserved to the parties to revert to the Court should any further, or amended, orders or directions be required to give effect to the profit forfeiture orders or to these orders.
Wilkinson-Smith J
0
12
1