Cooke v Givealittle c/o Perpetual Trust Ltd

[2025] NZHC 2792

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-002656

[2025] NZHC 2792

UNDER

High Court Rules 7.23 Application without notice

IN THE MATTER

of Givealittle Funds Distribution

BETWEEN

JASMINE LEE COOKE

Applicant

AND

GIVEALITTLE C/- PERPETUAL TRUST LTD

Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

24 September 2025

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

Copy to: Applicant in person

COOKE v GIVEALITTLE C/- PERPETUAL TRUST LTD [2025] NZHC 2792 [24 September 2025]

[1]    I have today, as Duty Judge, received the interlocutory application without notice of Jasmine Lee Cooke seeking an order preventing funds raised under a Givealittle campaign, following the death of Ms Cooke’s partner who is named as “Kane Donald Andrew Gofton (Watson)”, from being distributed.

[2]    Ms Cooke is self-represented. As a result, the application lacks precision. For example, the respondent is named as “Givealittle C/- Perpetual Trust Ltd” on the face of the application but the order applied for is in respect of “Givealittle Ltd and any other relevant party”.

[3]In her affidavit, Ms Cooke begins:

I have never been consulted nor do I know Kristalle Tayler or Shaquille Tromaline. I have only met them a few times briefly.

[4]    Ms Cooke does not say anything further about the identity of Ms Tayler or Ms Tromaline, nor how they might be connected to the application. I infer from the material provided that one of them might be Kane’s mother and one of them might be Kane’s sister.

[5]    What I infer from the material filed is that Ms Cook’s partner, Kane, was killed at Muriwai beach when a sand dune collapsed on him.

[6]    I have heard of Givealittle. As a matter of general knowledge, I am aware that Givealittle facilitates the collection of charitable donations from the public when tragic events occur to support the victims of the tragic events.

[7]    I infer that someone – probably Ms Taylor and/or Ms Tromaline – set up a Givealittle page to support Kane’s family following his death.

[8]    Ms Cooke’s affidavit is to the effect that she did not set up the Givealittle facility following Kane’s death, and nor did she ask for it to be done. However, she considers that the representations made would have led members of the donating public to believe that she and her children would be the beneficiaries, or principal beneficiaries, of the donations.

[9]    Ms Cooke is concerned that the people who control the Givealittle page might divert donations to other people, who I infer to be Kane’s mother and sister.

[10]   Given the evidence of communications annexed to Ms Cooke’s affidavit, I consider there is some cause for concern.

[11]   In legal terms, I consider there is a serious question to be tried as to who is entitled to the donated money.

[12]   The balance of convenience, at this stage, favours freezing the Givealittle account until matters become more clear.

[13]   If the funds are dissipated then there is a real risk that damages could not be recovered.

[14]   I think the overall interests of justice favour the granting of an injunction, and given the risk of dissipation I will grant it without notice.

[15]   I make an order by way of interlocutory injunction restraining Givealittle Ltd and any other party controlling funds donated as a result of the death of Kane Donald Andrew Gofton (Watson) from disbursing any of the funds under their control to any person pending further order of the Court. In other words, I make an order freezing all such funds .

[16]   Leave is reserved to any party affected by the making of this order by way of injunction to apply for it to be varied or revoked. Any such application must be on notice to Ms Cooke.

[17]   Ms Cooke may, or may not, be aware that an application for an interlocutory injunction is an interim step to preserve a situation so that a substantive proceeding can be filed and advanced to hearing. I direct that Ms Cooke file and serve her substantive proceeding no later than 20 October 2025. If she fails to do so, the registry is to put the file before the Duty Judge.

[18]Costs are reserved.

Brewer J