Rodewald v Stark

[2025] NZHC 2875

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2025-419-000331

[2025] NZHC 2875

UNDER

High Court Rules 2016, rr 7.53 and 7.54

IN THE MATTER OF

A without notice application for injunction

BETWEEN

THOMAS LEE RODEWALD as liquidator of WAITOTARA FARMS LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

KEITH RICHARD STARK

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	R L Scott for Plaintiff
Judgment:	1 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF ANDREW J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Andrew on 1 October 2025 at 2.00 pm

pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016 Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date: ………………………………….

RODEWALD v STARK [2025] NZHC 2875 [1 October 2025]

Introduction

[1]    The applicant, Mr Thomas Lee Rodewald, is a licensed insolvency practitioner and liquidator of Waitotara Farms Ltd (WFL). He was appointed as liquidator by a decision of this Court dated 1 July 2025.1

[2]    I refer to and rely on the lengthy and complex background history to these proceedings as set out in that liquidation judgment.

[3]    This is a without notice application for an interim injunction to grant possession of a farm dwellinghouse and curtilage and  surrounding  farmlands  to  Mr Rodewald. The land and dwellings are part of the assets of WFL and under the jurisdiction of the liquidator. The applicant seeks the following orders:

(a)that the defendant, Mr Keith Richard Stark, vacate the properties at 1179 Tahuna Road, RD 4, Ohinewai, and any curtilage at 1193a Tahuna Road, Ohinewai;2 and

(b)that Mr Rodewald, as the applicant, be granted possession of those lands (as more accurately defined in cl 1(b) of the without notice application dated 23 September 2025).

Analysis and decision

[4]    I am satisfied, having read the affidavit of Mr Thomas Lee Rodewald sworn 22 September 2025, the statement of claim, memorandum of counsel and without notice application for interim injunction dated 23 September 2025, that the interim injunction orders should be granted — and on a without notice basis. There are clearly serious questions to be tried, and the overall justice and balance of convenience favours the grant of the injunction.3 As noted, there is a lengthy history to this matter and a compelling case for urgency is made out. In particular, I note there is a strong evidential basis for concluding that the defendant, Mr Stark, has a history of

1      Khov & Jones v Waitotara Farms Ltd [2025] NZHC 1750.

2      The legal description of the properties is set out in full at cl 1(b) of the without notice application dated 23 September 2025.

3      Klissers Farmhouse Bakeries Ltd v Harvest Bakeries Ltd [1985] 2 NZLR 129 (CA) at 142.

obstruction and it is very much in the overall interests of justice that the liquidator, namely the applicant, Mr Rodewald, be able to sell the assets in dispute in a manner which maximises the sale price. In particular, it is in the overall interests of justice that visitors to the properties, including those visiting for the purposes of purchase, are free from interference when visiting or carrying out their lawful duties at the properties.

[5]    I accordingly grant the application for interim injunction and in the terms set out in the draft orders.

[6]    The proceedings are to be listed again for mention before me (i.e. the return date) on Wednesday, 15 October 2025 at 10.00 am.

Andrew J