Proceedings sought to recover lost investments after fund’s collapse
New Zealand’s Supreme Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against an unfavourable Court of Appeal judgment in civil proceedings to recover investments lost following the collapse of a fund that had operated as a Ponzi scheme.
In UV Limited v AB Limited as trustee of the CD Trust and the EF Trust [2026] NZSC 31, the first applicant was a financial services company through which most investors learned of the fund. The second applicant was the company’s sole director.
The director publicly commented on the fund’s collapse in multiple media reports, which named both applicants.
In criminal proceedings, the District Court sentenced the fund’s operator on fraud charges. The court issued an order under s 202(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 to permanently suppress the name and identifying details of any victims, including the applicants and investors who had lost money.
In later civil proceedings, the respondents sued both applicants to recover lost investments.
The applicants applied for non-publication orders in the civil proceedings that would replicate the impact of the District Court’s suppression order. They sought to anonymise the parties in the civil proceedings and prevent the disclosure of identifying material about them, which would supposedly prevent breaches of the suppression order in the criminal proceedings.
Both applicants also sought to suppress the director’s affidavit, which allegedly included private and sensitive confidential information about the applicants and related persons.
The High Court dismissed the application. The Court of Appeal then dismissed the applicants’ appeal. Applying Erceg v Erceg [2016] NZSC 135, the appeal court determined that this case did not meet the threshold for a civil suppression order.
The applicants applied for leave to appeal against the appeal court judgment. In their proposed appeal, they planned to raise the following questions:
Upon refusing leave, the Supreme Court of New Zealand ordered the applicants to pay the first to sixth respondents one set of costs of $2,500.
The Supreme Court ruled that the proposed appeal would essentially repeat the arguments submitted before the appeal court and would involve the application of settled principles to specific facts.
The Supreme Court saw no question of general or public importance and no apparent miscarriage of justice in the civil context.
Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Act defined an offending publication as a publication in the context of any report or account relating to the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court
noted that “relating to” contemplated some type of link.
In this case, the Supreme Court pointed out that the applicants did not suggest that the appeal court erroneously assessed whether the references in the pleadings established the required link.
Regarding Erceg, the Supreme Court noted that this portion of the proposed appeal also entailed a factual evaluation. The Supreme Court saw no need to interfere with the appeal court’s approach to evaluating the facts.
