Van Heeren should have to appear, court told

Alexander van Heeren allegedly held on to Huka Lodge. Photo / NZME

Forcing Huka Lodge's owner to appear in the High Court and be questioned before a judge will get to the bottom of his financial affairs, says his former business partner's lawyer.

Dutch businessman Alexander van Heeren is opposing an application he should come to court and have his affairs probed.

That bid, launched by South African steel trader Michael Kidd, forms part of a 19-year-long fight with van Heeren over the breakup of the pair's business empire.

Kidd claimed he got less than US$5 million ($7.5 million) when they severed ties in 1991, while van Heeren allegedly held on to assets worth at least US$47.5 million - including Huka Lodge, Dolphin Island retreat in Fiji and 32kg of gold.

This year Justice John Fogarty ordered van Heeren to pay US$25 million to the High Court in Kidd's favour as part of the dispute.

Alexander van Heeren allegedly held on to Huka Lodge. Photo / NZME

As well as this "interim payment", the judge ordered van Heeren to provide a complete list of all of the partnership's assets and their value.

Van Heeren is appealing against that, claiming in a series of affidavits that his assets were transferred into two foundations in Liechtenstein and were out of his control.

Justice Fogarty, in August, said van Heeren had not fully informed the court about the current whereabouts of partnership assets nor their value.

Van Heeren has since filed another affidavit with more information, in what Justice Fogarty yesterday said was a big improvement.

Lawyers for Kidd, however, said inconsistencies had emerged across the affidavits and pushed for an order that van Heeren be examined.

Asking van Heeren to file more affidavits wasn't "getting us there", Kidd's lawyer, Brent O'Callahan, told the judge. "The process of examination is much more likely to get to the bottom of it ... frankly what other option is there?" O'Callahan asked.

But van Heeren's lawyer, Bruce Gray, QC, said "trolling through affidavits" wasn't helpful.

In the latest affidavits, van Heeren had used language that "got to the substance" of the situation, Gray said.

Gray said his client had asked one of the foundations for information on where assets were located and launched court action when that information was not provided.

Justice Fogarty reserved his decision.