Jacobson v Hoole - [2025] NZHC 2473

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-1798 [2025] NZHC 2473

UNDER the Receiverships Act 1993, the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 and the Personal Property Securities Act 1999

IN THE MATTER

of an application for an order that a receiver must cease to act as such, and prohibit the appointment of any other receiver in respect of property in receivership

BETWEEN

MARCUS BRIAN JACOBSON

Applicant

AND

GARETH RUSSEL HOOLE

First Respondent

BLOMFIELD CONSULTING LIMITED

Second Respondent

Hearing: 21 August 2025

Appearances:

M T Lennard and K O M Fitzgibbon for Applicant J Oliver-Hood for Second Respondent

Judgment:

28 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 28/08/2024 at 3.30 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Sue Stodart Law, Auckland J Oliver-Hood, Auckland Zhang Law, Auckland
Stout Stret Chambers, Wellington

JACOBSON v HOOLE & ANOR [2025] NZHC 2473 [28 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] Marcus Jacobson is a property developer. In 2024, he sought the assistance of Blomfield Consulting Ltd (BCL) in the context of issues that had arisen with his funder, Arena Investors LP (Arena).

[2] Mr Jacobson did not pay invoices issued by BCL and BCL appointed a receiver, as provided for in its terms of engagement.

[3] Mr Jacobson disputes that the invoices are owing and has challenged the appointment of the receiver. The substantive application in this proceeding is an application to set aside the appointment of the receiver.

[4] There are associated proceedings by BCL seeking to maintain a security interest under the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 over Mr Jacobson’s personal property (the 1625 Proceeding). By an interim order dated 7 July 2025, this Court ordered that the registration of the financing interest at issue be maintained pending determination of the 1625 Proceeding.1

[5]Before me now are two interlocutory applications.

[6] Mr Jacobson has applied for interim orders restraining the receiver from taking further steps and restraining BCL from appointing a new receiver until the hearing of the substantive application to set aside the receivership.

[7] BCL has applied for security for costs on the basis that there is a credible concern that Mr Jacobson will be unable to satisfy an adverse costs award should BCL ultimately be the successful party.

Background

[8] In July 2024, Mr Jacobson engaged the services of BCL and accepted terms of engagement.

1 Blomfield Consulting Ltd v Jacobson HC Auckland CIV-2025-404-1625, 7 July 2025 (Minute of Gault J) at [5].

[9] The terms of engagement provided that Mr Jacobson engaged BCL to deliver the following services:
(a)Assist with investigation into issue between the Client and Arena Finance and or any related entity with the view of drafting a letter outlining a protected disclosure.

(b)Provide instructions to lawyers, consultants, accountants and other professional advisers on behalf of the Client, as required following engagement by the Client.

(c)Provide such other assistance and advice to the Client in…

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 Jacobson v Hoole

Details

AGLC: Jacobson v Hoole [2025] NZHC 2473
Case: [2025] NZHC 2473
Decision Date: 28 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an application for an interim order restraining the appointment of a receiver and for security for costs. Marcus Jacobson, a property developer, had engaged Blomfield Consulting Limited (BCL) to provide services relating to a dispute with Arena Investors LP. BCL issued invoices for services rendered, which Jacobson failed to pay. BCL appointed a receiver in respect of Jacobson's property under the terms of engagement. Jacobson sought to set aside the appointment of the receiver and for an interim order restraining BCL from appointing a new receiver and from taking further steps. BCL applied for security for costs. The court declined the application for an interim injunction finding that there was not a serious question to be tried. The court also declined the application for security for costs finding that it would not be just in all the circumstances. The court directed the parties to attempt to agree costs. If agreement could not be reached, the parties were directed to file and serve material to support their respective claims for costs.

Orders