The High Court has put Auckland apartment developer Du Val Capital Partners and other Du Val Group companies into interim receivership. Video / Alex Burton
PwC’s case against Charlotte and Kenyon Clarke is due to proceed in court tomorrow.
That seeks a hearing date for a case seeking information over Remuera house rent.
Justice Jane Anderson has allowed the application to proceed despite the Clarkes’ opposition.
Du Val receivers PwC are due to go to court tomorrow against Charlotte and Kenyon Clarke and many of their companies and limited partnerships.
PwC wants the court to set a date for a substantive hearing in its case against the Remuera couple and their many corporate entities.
Itwants information about assets that PwC partner John Fisk has previously said had not been supplied.
But the accountants are also seeking to escape liability in paying rent on the Clarkes’ Remuera house, raided by the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and police on August 2.
Late last month, Justice Jane Anderson in the High Court at Auckland said PwC’s application would go ahead tomorrow, despite the Clarkes' opposition.
Charlotte and Kenyon Clarke of Du Val Group: their next court date is tomorrow.
The next step tomorrow could allocate a date for the hearing in the matter.
“I am now the judge assigned to this proceeding. I have received the receivers’ interlocutory application for orders requiring Mr and Mrs Clarke to provide information,” she said in a timetabling minute of November 21.
“This application will have a first call on December 3 at which a date will be allocated for hearing.”
For consistency with previous orders relating to the confidentiality of the Clarkes' personal details and for the avoidance of doubt, she directed any documents filed by PwC in the case should not be made available to any media.
Only the FMA and the Clarkes should get those, she said.
But she also directed her November 21 minute be issued to the media a day after it came out so it was clear what happened.
That was in accordance with the prior direction of Justice Neil Campbell, she said, referring to his minute issued on October 18.
Police with gun cases on August 2 when they entered the Remuera address of Du Val's Charlotte and Kenyon Clarke. Photo / Alex Burton
PwC made its application under s32 (7) of the Receiverships Act 1993, trying to escape paying rent for the Clarkes' home. That section allows a receiver to get a court order to limit liability and excuse them from paying.
As receivers, PwC is liable to pay the rent. An FMA order allows the Clarkes to cover their rent and be paid $1500/week each out of funds that were in the bank when PwC was appointed.
PwC argued tomorrow’s proceeding should not be delayed.
On November 13, Justice Campbell also heard an aspect of the case. He said then the receivers would not just make one application when the matter proceeded: “They anticipate making another application which they say should also be heard on December 3.”
The receivers have applied for orders requiring information about where assets are and who owns them.
The earlier decision last month on November 13 from Justice Campbell said the Clarkes opposed PwC going ahead tomorrow because the couple had not got a lawyer.
Also tomorrow, the FMA was set to proceed against the Clarkes and their many companies and limited partnerships.
PwC partner John Fisk. Photo / Supplied
But Justice Campbell allowed the FMA action to be stalled till the Remuera couple got a lawyer.
He did not agree to the Clarkes’ arguments that PwC should be stopped tomorrow too.
Justice Campbell said the receivers’ preference was that the hearing should proceed.
Counsel for the Clarkes was listed earlier last month as Nick Williams at Britomart Chambers, Paul Murray of Ākarana Chambers and Katie Hogan of City Chambers. The Clarkes have previously been represented by Davey Salmon, KC, and Lee Salmon Long partner Daniel Nilsson.
Williams, Murray and Hogan were also listed in the November 21 decision as prospective counsel for the Clarkes.
Justice Campbell wrote in his minute last month that PwC’s action was “much more straightforward” than the FMA’s application.
He disagreed with the Clarkes' grounds for delaying PwC’s action in the case now proceeding tomorrow.
“It is better for all parties that the application be determined sooner rather than later. Contrary to what the Clarkes suggest in their memorandum, an adjournment would not mean that the receivers would choose to continue to pay rent in the meantime,” he noted.
PwC’s report has put Du Val’s debts at $237.6 million and expressed serious concern about alleged irregular accounting entries that created assets that the receivers said may not be legitimate.
