Cryptopia Limited (in liquidation) - [2025] NZHC 2113

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2019-409-544

CIV-2023-485-411 [2025] NZHC 2113

IN THE MATTER of an application concerning CRYPTOPIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

AND

IN THE MATTER

of an application by DAVID IAN RUSCOE and MALCOLM RUSSELL MOORE of GRANT THORNTON NEW ZEALAND

LIMITED

BETWEEN

DAVID IAN RUSCOE and MALCOLM RUSSELL MOORE of

GRANT THORNTON NEW ZEALAND
LIMITED, as liquidators of CRYPTOPIA LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)
Applicants

AND

RYAN HOUCHENS, GIA THANH PHAN, TRISTEN ROBINSON, JOSHUA DAVID STEVENSON, ANDREW ST JOHN ROSS
First to Fifth Interested Parties

AND

GNY.IO LIMITED

Sixth Interested Party

On the papers

Counsel:

Applicant in person

S A Barker and B McKinnon for the liquidators

Judgment:

30 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Access to Court documents]

CRYPTOPIA LTD [2025] NZHC 2113 [30 July 2025]

Introduction

[1] By application of 1 April 2025 a person identifying themselves as Dr Vihang Sharma applies for access to documents in this proceeding.

[2] The documents to which access is sought are identified in the notice of application as:

All transcripts, for Dec 18 2024 case Ruscoe vs Cattermole.

[Exhibit] DIR 2, court document handed out in 2nd affidavit by Ruscoe in 2019.

All judge notes for Court orders made for the release of 344 Bitcoin,

All briefs provided by Liquidator to the Grant Thornton Recommended and Court appointed Lawyers.

All meetings and all documents such as May 18 2019, which has not been put up, court hearing with Ruscoe vs Cryptopia.

[3]The reasons for the access request are as follows:

I would like to seek out answers as to why the TRUSTEE / Liquidator are hiding the blockchain wallet addresses for my assets. They have breached trust law and I would like to seek out the return of my funds. I need assets returned to me.

David Ruscoe is in contempt of court as he has not followed the court order and provided all the court documents to the beneficiaries.

[4] In a memorandum in response by the liquidators, they say exhibit DIR2 of Mr Ruscoe’s 8 November 2019 affidavit contains highly confidential information, including account holder details. The previous disclosure of the exhibit has been the subject of successful proceedings by the liquidators for breach of confidence. Injunctions are currently in place against Mr Victor Cattermole, his company, Epic Trust Ltd, and associated defendants concerning their misuse of the information.1 The

1 Ruscoe (as liquidators of Cryptopia Ltd (In Liq)) v Epic Trust Ltd [2024] NZHC 165; Ruscoe v Epic Trust Ltd [2024] NZHC 1336; Ruscoe v Epic Trust [2024] NZHC 1546. The liquidators have twice applied for orders that Mr Cattermole is in contempt of court. The first application was resolved by consent: Ruscoe v Cattermole HC Christchurch CIV 2019-409-544, 14 July 2021 (Orders of the Court by Consent). In December 2024, McHerron J held that Mr Cattermole was again in breach of the Court’s 21 October 2020 orders and would have (if it…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Cryptopia Limited (in liquidation)

Details

AGLC: Cryptopia Limited (in liquidation) [2025] NZHC 2113
Case: [2025] NZHC 2113
Decision Date: 30 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand dealt with an application for access to certain court documents by an individual identifying themselves as Dr Vihang Sharma, who sought information related to the liquidation of Cryptopia Limited. The liquidators, David Ian Ruscoe and Malcolm Russell Moore of Grant Thornton New Zealand Limited, opposed the application, arguing that the documents contained confidential information and were subject to existing injunctions against misuse. The applicant, Dr Sharma, claimed that the liquidators were hiding the blockchain wallet addresses for his assets and that David Ruscoe was in contempt of court for not providing all court documents to the beneficiaries.

The court considered the liquidators' arguments and the nature of the information sought by Dr Sharma. The liquidators highlighted that the documents in question contained highly confidential information, including account holder details, which had previously been subject to successful proceedings for breach of confidence. The liquidators further argued that disclosure of this information could be used to reverse engineer their account confirmation process and that there was a risk it would be misused. Given these concerns, the liquidators opposed the application.

The court found that Dr Sharma's request for access to court documents was an abuse of process. The applicant had not provided satisfactory proof of identity and had made improper attempts to solicit information from a court officer. The court noted that the applicant had falsely claimed to have conducted a secret teleconference and had suggested that court documents were being shared in a private discord group. The court concluded that the application was an abuse of process and dismissed it accordingly.

The court also directed that unless the applicant provided satisfactory independent verification of their identity, current residential address, and their interest in the proceeding, the Registry was not to respond to further communications from them. Any materials provided by the applicant to address these requirements were to be referred to the court for consideration.

Orders