Kea Investments Limited v Wikeley

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 127/2024
[2025] NZSC 75

BETWEEN	KEA INVESTMENTS LIMITED Applicant
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

Court:	Winkelmann CJ, Williams and Miller JJ
Counsel:	J B M Smith KC, M C Harris and J L W Wass for Applicant First Respondent in person M D Arthur and J Marcetic for Second Respondent No appearance for Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents
Judgment:	4 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AKea Investments Ltd’s application for leave to appeal is granted (Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609, [2024] 3 NZLR 901).
BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to discharge the permanent anti-suit and anti-injunctions awarded to Kea Investments Ltd in the High Court.
CCounsel to assist the Court will be appointed by the Registrar.
DThe applications to adduce further evidence are dismissed.
EThe application to extend the stay in Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 686, (2024) 26 PRNZ 667 is granted pending determination of the appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

This Court received separate applications for leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal,[1] by Kea Investments Ltd (Kea)[2] and Mr Wikeley respectively. This judgment addresses Kea’s application. We have dismissed Mr Wikeley’s application in a separate judgment.[3]
[1]Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609, [2024] 3 NZLR 901 (Courtney, Muir and Cull JJ).
[2]Kea Investments Ltd is a British Virgin Islands company connected to Sir Owen Glenn.
[3]Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2025] NZSC 76.
Kea’s application for leave to appeal is granted, with the approved question being whether the Court of Appeal was correct to discharge the permanent anti-suit and anti-injunctions awarded to Kea in the High Court.[4] The scope of this appeal does not extend to permitting the parties to revisit the findings of the Court of Appeal in respect of which we declined to grant leave to Mr Wikeley in our separate judgment.[5]
[4]See Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3260 (Gault J).
[5]For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the fraud, forgery and conspiracy findings.
Below we address other matters and orders connected to Kea’s application.

Counsel assisting

Given the nature and complexity of the appeal, and in light of Mr Wikeley being self-represented, counsel to assist the Court will be appointed by the Registrar.

Mr Wikeley’s applications to adduce further evidence

Mr Wikeley applied to adduce affidavits from lawyers (one practising in the British Virgin Islands and the other in Kentucky) which appear to have been filed in separate High Court proceedings.[6] Kea opposes the admission of these affidavits on the basis that they lack freshness and cogency. Kea also submits the Supreme Court Rules 2004 do not allow for further evidence to be filed on applications for leave. We ‍need not decide that jurisdictional point as we consider the evidence lacks cogency. We would not admit it in any case. Accordingly, we dismiss Mr Wikeley’s applications to adduce the affidavits.

Kea’s application for a stay

[6]These proceedings concern an application for directions by the liquidators of Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (WFTL). The affidavits appear to have been filed on behalf of one of WFTL’s creditors.

The Court of Appeal granted a stay of the orders made in that Court pending determination of Kea’s application for leave to appeal to this Court.[7] Kea submits that the stay should be extended until determination of its appeal. There are no submissions to the contrary. It is plainly appropriate in the circumstances of this case to extend the stay accordingly.[8]
[7]Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 686, (2024) 26 PRNZ 667 (Cooke J) at [19].
[8]Supreme Court Rules 2004, r 30(5).

Solicitors:
Gilbert Walker, Auckland for Applicant
Chapman Tripp, Auckland for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Kea Investments Limited, a British Virgin Islands company linked to Sir Owen Glenn, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal. The case, Kea Investments Limited v Wikeley, involved a complex dispute between Kea and Kenneth David Wikeley, as well as other respondents. The Court of Appeal had discharged permanent anti-suit and anti-injunction orders that the High Court had awarded to Kea. The Supreme Court was required to decide whether the Court of Appeal was correct in discharging these orders.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court included whether the Court of Appeal was right in discharging the permanent anti-suit and anti-injunction orders awarded to Kea in the High Court. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether to allow further evidence to be presented and whether to extend the stay of the Court of Appeal's orders pending the determination of the appeal. The Supreme Court found that Kea's application for leave to appeal should be granted, focusing on the specific question of the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision to discharge the orders. The Court declined to allow further evidence and extended the stay of the Court of Appeal's orders until the appeal was determined.

The Supreme Court granted Kea Investments Limited's application for leave to appeal, specifying that the appeal would address whether the Court of Appeal was correct in discharging the permanent anti-suit and anti-injunction orders awarded to Kea in the High Court. The Court dismissed Mr Wikeley's applications to present further evidence, noting that the proposed affidavits lacked cogency and were not fresh. The Court also extended the stay of the Court of Appeal's orders pending the determination of the appeal. Counsel to assist the Court would be appointed by the Registrar due to the complexity of the appeal.

The final orders of the Supreme Court included granting Kea Investments Limited's application for leave to appeal, with the specific question being whether the Court of Appeal was correct to discharge the permanent anti-suit and anti-injunction orders. The Court dismissed Mr Wikeley's applications to adduce further evidence and granted an extension of the stay of the Court of Appeal's orders pending the determination of the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established