Kea Investments Limited v Wikeley

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 127/2024
[2025] NZSC 156

BETWEEN	KEA INVESTMENTS LIMITED Appellant
AND	KENNETH DAVID WIKELEY First Respondent WIKELEY FAMILY TRUSTEE LIMITED (IN INTERIM LIQUIDATION) Second Respondent ERIC JOHN WATSON Third Respondent WIKELEY INCORPORATED Fourth Respondent USA ASSET HOLDINGS INCORPORATED Fifth Respondent

Hearing:	5–6 November 2025
Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, Williams, Kós and Miller JJ
Counsel:	J B M Smith KC, M C Harris, J L W Wass and S T Coupe for Appellant First Respondent in person M D Arthur and J Marcetic for interim liquidators of Second Respondent No appearance for Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents A E Kirk as counsel assisting the Court
Judgment:	10 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal in Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609, [2024] 3 NZLR 901 is allowed.
BThe orders made by the High Court in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3260 at [156(a)(i)–‍(iv)], and in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3532 at [7], are reinstated.
CCosts are reserved.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

We deliver this result judgment now, having regard to the existence of live proceedings before the New Zealand High Court, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
For the avoidance of doubt, we record that the New Zealand Court of Appeal did not disturb the High Court’s findings that the Coal Agreement was fraudulent and void (by reason of being a forgery), that the default judgment obtained by the second respondent in the Fayette Circuit Court (Kentucky) was obtained by fraud, and that the purported assignments of the Coal Agreement and default judgment were void.[1] We record also that this Court denied leave to Mr Wikeley to challenge these findings.[2]
[1]Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3260 (Gault J) at [110]–‍[116] and [156(b)(i)–(iv)]; and Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609, [2024] 3 NZLR 901 (Courtney, Muir and Cull JJ) at [134]–[146] and [211(d)].
[2]Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2025] NZSC 76 (Winkelmann CJ, Williams and Miller JJ).
Reasons are to follow. Those reasons will also determine costs in the appeal.

Solicitors:
Gilbert Walker, Auckland for Appellant
Chapman Tripp, Auckland for interim liquidators of Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand recently heard an appeal in the case of Kea Investments Limited versus Kenneth David Wikeley, Wikeley Family Trustee Limited (in interim liquidation), Eric John Watson, Wikeley Incorporated, and USA Asset Holdings Incorporated. The case revolves around the validity of a Coal Agreement, which Kea Investments contends was a forgery and obtained through fraud, leading to a default judgment in Kentucky. The Court of Appeal had previously overturned the High Court's decision, but Kea Investments appealed to the Supreme Court. The key legal issues before the Supreme Court were the validity of the Coal Agreement, the legitimacy of the default judgment in Kentucky, and the subsequent assignments of these documents. The Court had to determine whether the High Court's findings were correctly overturned by the Court of Appeal and whether the Coal Agreement and default judgment were indeed fraudulent and void.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, found in favor of Kea Investments and reinstated the earlier High Court orders. The Court confirmed that the Coal Agreement was indeed a forgery and void, and that the default judgment obtained in Kentucky was the result of fraud. The purported assignments of these documents were also declared void. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeal erred in overturning the High Court's findings. This decision aligns with the earlier findings that the Coal Agreement was fraudulent and the default judgment obtained by Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd was procured by deceit. The Court also noted that the appeal by Mr. Wikeley to challenge these findings was previously denied by the Supreme Court itself. The reasoning provided by the Court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that fraudulent practices are not rewarded. The Court's decision reinstates the original findings of the High Court, which had been overturned by the Court of Appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established