Eight One Two Limited v Ryan - [2025] NZHC 3029

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-000492 [2025] NZHC 3029

UNDER the Personal Property Securities Act 1999

IN THE MATTER OF Financing Statement number
FA2N8Y5H3MA9G884 and F75KAJ4D85B24R69

BETWEEN EIGHT ONE TWO LIMITED
Applicant

AND MATTHEW PETER RYAN
Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances: R McNaughton for the Applicant
S Dalgleish for the Respondent

Judgment: 14 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

[Costs]

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 October 2025 at 11 am Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

MBC Law Limited, Auckland Peter Brinsley, Wellington

EIGHT ONE TWO LIMITED v RYAN [2025] NZHC 3029 [14 October 2025]

[1] A bitter dispute between former associates Laurence Pope, director of Eight One Two Limited (Eight One Two), and Matthew Ryan resulted in an application by Eight One Two to remove a financing statement from the personal property securities register under Part 10 of the Personal Property Securities Act 1999.1 The registrations related to cars sold by Eight One Two in the course of its business selling luxury and high-performance cars.

[2] There were procedural irregularities from the outset including an omission to file an originating document to commence the proceeding. While that was regularised, the state of the filings has been problematic ever since.

[3] Mr Ryan opposed the removal. He sought amendment to the financing statement to include other vehicles owned by Eight One Two, alleging that the security interest proffered by Mr Pope in support of the loan to him was not owned by Mr Pope or his business. Mr Ryan applied for interlocutory injunctive relief to “perfect” his security interest over the collateral purportedly offered by Mr Pope by substituting other vehicles in the Eight One Two fleet.2

[4] Eight One Two opposed the application for injunctive relief on various grounds. It contends that no valid security exists, the loan (if any) has been repaid, and it has offered security over two luxury high-value vehicles as a compromise until matters are resolved by agreement or the Court determines the issues between the parties.

[5] I pause to note that this was one of a suite of claims and cross-claims between the protagonists, which also included the lodging of caveats against titles to land owned by other entities associated with Mr Pope.

[6] Various interlocutory skirmishes followed and a half-day hearing was allocated.

1 Interlocutory application on notice for an order to remove a financing statement, dated 24 February 2025.
2 Interlocutory application on notice in support of an urgent application for injunctive relief opposing that a financing statement be removed but maintained by way of a court order, dated 21 March 2025.

[7] Mr Ryan then applied to vacate the hearing on several grounds including non-compliance with timetabling directions.3 Eight One Two opposed the application. The Civil List Judge declined to vacate the hearing and urged the parties and respective counsel to focus on resolving their substantive dispute rather than…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Eight One Two Limited v Ryan and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 3029
Decision Date: 14 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Eight One Two Limited, a company involved in the sale of luxury and high-performance cars, filed an application to remove financing statements from the personal property securities register under the Personal Property Securities Act 1999. The financing statements pertained to cars sold by Eight One Two. The application was against Matthew Ryan, who opposed the removal and sought to amend the financing statement to include other vehicles owned by Eight One Two. Ryan also applied for interlocutory injunctive relief to perfect his security interest over the collateral offered by Laurence Pope, a director of Eight One Two.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the financing statements should be removed and whether Ryan's application for injunctive relief should be granted. Eight One Two argued that no valid security existed, the loan had been repaid, and it had offered security over two luxury vehicles as a compromise. Ryan, on the other hand, sought to amend the financing statement and perfect his security interest.

The Court found that Ryan's failure to file a substantive claim within the stipulated period triggered the consequences outlined in the consent directions. The Court noted that while Eight One Two's attitude towards cooperating in the appointment of an independent mechanic was inadequately explained, it did not disentitle them to the consequential orders in the consent orders. The Court ordered that the remaining financing statements against the specified vehicles must be removed by Ryan. The Court also found that Eight One Two was the notionally successful party due to Ryan's failure to file his substantive claims in accordance with the Court's directions. Consequently, the Court made a costs order in favour of Eight One Two against Ryan in the sum of $15,735.50. The proceedings were at an end.

Orders