Harder v Incor Holdings Limited - [2025] NZHC 2229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-001975

[2025] NZHC 2229

UNDER Section 172 of the Senior Courts Act 2016

IN THE MATTER

of a judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia

BETWEEN

LORNE HARDER

First Applicant

SPRINGHILL INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Second Applicant

HARDER INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Third Applicant

Continued over …

Hearing: 6 August 2025

Counsel:

W Fotherby and K Tubbs for Applicants

Judgment:

8 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDERSON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 8 August 2025 at 3.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

………………………………
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Meredith Connell, Auckland

HARDER v INCOR HOLDINGS LTD [2025] NZHC 2229 [8 August 2025]

AND
INCOR HOLDINGS LIMITED

First Respondent

INCOR ENERGY MATERIALS LP

Second Respondent

The applications

[1]There are two (consolidated) without notice applications before me:

(a)for orders registering a money judgment of the Supreme Court of British Columbia issued on 13 December 2024 (BC Judgment) against the first respondent, InCor Holdings Ltd (IHL);

(b)for freezing and ancillary orders against IHL and the purported second respondent, InCor Energy Materials LP (IEMLP).

[2] The applications are supported by two comprehensive memoranda and by voluminous affidavits and bundles of authorities. Much of this material relates to activity in court proceedings overseas that I discuss below. In addition to considering this material I have also heard from counsel and received further submissions on certain aspects.

Background

[3] Mr Harder (the first applicant) is a retired insurance broker. Through his companies, Springhill Investments Ltd and Harder Investments Ltd (who are the other applicants), Mr Harder invested approximately CAD 7 million in, and loaned CAD 11.35 million to, certain mining-associated entities controlled by Jocelyn Bennett and George Molyviatis, the directors of IHL, in multiple transactions.

[4] The applicants have obtained judgment against IHL and others following a summary trial (in the nature of summary judgment) in the Supreme Court of British Columbia for repayment of certain loans, and other orders (BC Judgment).

[5] The summary trial was an aspect of broader proceedings on foot in Canada (BC proceeding). Summary judgment was obtained by default, although there had been considerable involvement by the defendants (or at least Ms Bennett and Mr Molyviatis) in earlier chapters of the BC proceeding. IHL is controlled by Ms Bennett and Mr Molyviatis. The same appears to be true of IEMLP.

[6] Among other claims in the wider BC proceeding is a claim involving the applicants’ investment of CAD 3.5 million in IEMLP. IEMLP is purportedly a limited partnership, but it transpires IEMLP was never registered. I return to the consequences of this below. The purpose of the IEMLP partnership was to invest in shares in LeadFX Inc (LeadFX), a company involved in lead mining.

[7] The applicants say they were induced by fraudulent representations made by Ms Bennett and Mr Molyviatis to acquire partnership shares from IHL in the IEMLP partnership for CAD 3.5 million.1

[8] Springhill Investments Ltd holds…

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 Harder v Incor Holdings Limited 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 2229
Decision Date: 8 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Harder v InCor Holdings Limited involved an application by Lorne Harder, through his companies Springhill Investments Ltd and Harder Investments Ltd, to register a money judgment obtained against InCor Holdings Ltd (IHL) in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and to obtain freezing and ancillary orders against IHL and InCor Energy Materials LP (IEMLP), an entity purporting to be a limited partnership. The applicants sought to enforce the British Columbia Judgment, which ordered IHL to pay substantial sums plus interest and to deliver shares. The legal issues centered on whether the memorial for judgment registration was properly authenticated and whether the applicants had a good arguable case for a freezing order, with assets to which the order could apply, a risk of dissipation, and whether the balance of convenience favored granting the order.

The Court found that the memorial did not need to be authenticated to register the judgment but required attention to this aspect. Regarding the freezing order, the Court concluded that there was a good arguable case on a present claim, with sufficient evidence of fraudulent misrepresentations by the directors of IHL, Jocelyn Bennett and George Molyviatis, which induced the applicants to invest. The Court also found that IHL held assets to which the order could apply, including its rights and interests in the IEMLP partnership and the LeadFX shares. There was a clear risk of dissipation due to the conduct of Bennett and Molyviatis, who had been found in contempt for failing to comply with asset disclosure orders. The Court balanced the need to protect the applicants against potential prejudice to the respondents and concluded that the orders should be granted, with appropriate carve-outs for legal expenses and ordinary business expenses. The Court also directed that service be made via email and adjourned the application for registration of judgment to allow for the necessary authentication of the memorial.

Orders