Grant v Singh - [2016] NZHC 1665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2015-404-991 [2016] NZHC 1665

BETWEEN
DAMIEN GRANT AND STEVEN

KHOV Applicants

AND

SATWANT SINGH Defendant

Hearing: 2 and 21 July 2016

Counsel:

A Ho for Applicants
G Aulakh for Respondent

Judgment:

21 July 2016

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

Solicitors:
Brent James Norling/Alden Ho, Auckland
Counsel:
G Aulakh, Auckland

GRANT AND KHOV v SINGH [2016] NZHC 1665 [21 July 2016]

[1] Mr Grant and Mr Khov are liquidators of AK Group (2006) Ltd. That company was placed in liquidation on 11 December 2014. It is one of the companies of what has been called the “Masala” group. Others include CHK Hospitality Ltd, Bucklands Beach Ltd and Stanmore Bay Ltd. Those companies are also in liquidation, and Messrs Grant and Khov are liquidators of each.

[2] Mr Grant and Mr Khov apply for orders that Mr Satwant Singh be held in contempt of Court, fined and ordered to pay costs in respect of his alleged deliberate disobedience of Court orders made in July 2015 and February 2016. Those orders required four directors of companies within the “Masala” group to deliver records of each company to the liquidators.

[3] I have already dealt with issues relating to other directors of companies within the Masala Group in a judgment given on 11 July 2016.1 I deferred consideration of the present application against Mr Singh because it became clear, during the course of a hearing on 2 Jun 2016, that there was an issue as to whether Mr Singh had authorised a solicitor, Mr Tolhurst, to act on his behalf on the relevant applications.2

[4] The hearing was adjourned to today, 21 July 2016. Mr Tolhurst has appeared, at my request. He has explained to me the circumstances in which he came to act as solicitor for the parties against whom the original orders were made on 29 July 2015.

[5] Mr Tolhurst was approached initially by Ms Jain, in relation to the proceeding in which the orders were sought. He was asked to act on behalf of all four of the respondents to that application; namely, Mr Rajwinder Grewal, Ms Ravinda Kaur, Ms Jain and Mr Satwant Singh. Mr Tolhurst asked to see all of the respondents before taking instructions. Ms Jain brought a group of people to see him, whom he saw on a number of occasions. He was introduced specifically to one
of them.

1 Grant and Khov v Grewal [2016] NZHC 1564. The orders in issue are set out at paras [8] and
[10] of that judgment.
2 Ibid, at para [12].

[6] As a result of those meetings, Mr Tolhurst believed that he had instructions to act for the four persons against whom the application had been brought. However, he frankly accepts that he cannot identify Mr Singh as one of those parties from whom he received instructions, in the sense of being present at one of those meetings. Mr Singh has said on oath that…

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 Grant v Singh 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: [2016] NZHC 1665
Decision Date: 21 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Grant and Khov v Singh, the applicants, Damien Grant and Steven Khov, who are liquidators of AK Group (2006) Ltd, sought orders for the defendant, Satwant Singh, to be held in contempt of court and to pay costs. AK Group (2006) Ltd was placed in liquidation, and the applicants sought orders against Singh, alleging he deliberately disobeyed court orders made in July 2015 and February 2016. The orders required four directors of companies within the Masala group to deliver records of each company to the liquidators. The court had to decide whether Singh had the requisite knowledge and state of mind to commit a deliberate breach of the orders. The court found that there was insufficient evidence to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Singh had the requisite knowledge to commit a deliberate breach of the orders. Therefore, the application to have Singh held in contempt must fail, and it was dismissed. The court directed that a transcript of everything said in court be made, so that the liquidators could assess their position in light of that.

Orders