Property developer Greg Olliver at the High Court in Auckland. Photo / Dean Purcell
Sarah Sparks married Greg Olliver in 2000. Twelve years later it fell apart. This year, self-represented Sparks gets her day in court. David Fisher investigates ...
A high-flying property developer acted in "bad faith" trying to buy debts owed by his ex-wife as part of a long-running and "acrimonious" divorce battle, a court has found.
Greg Olliver's plan collapsed at the Court of Appeal, which said the deal appeared to have no other purpose other than "to better pursue his personal dispute with his estranged wife", Sarah Sparks.
The Herald has analysed company structures and court documents relating to the couple's relationship collapse in 2012 after long delays in the case being heard at court and the sprawling legal actions it has spawned.
A date for the hearing has finally been set for the High Court in Auckland in 2020 - eight years after Olliver walked out of the marriage and six years after the couple divorced.
READ MORE
• Bitter battle: The $17 million divorce
• 'Neverland' block on the market
• Prime $15m block for sale in St Heliers after divorce battle
• Olliver with a twist
Throughout the case, Olliver has had representation from top-quality lawyers while Sparks is into her fourth year of representing herself after running up $2 million in debt on lawyers' fees.
Over that time, she has become a campaigner for changes to divorce laws, with her efforts attracting academic, legal and political interest.
The legal action following the divorce sprawls across multiple High Court cases, with much of it reflecting Sparks' efforts to discover what money Olliver has - a task made more difficult by the complicated nature of his personal affairs and the financial structures of his companies.
One court decision obtained by the Herald described property deals handled by one of Olliver's companies as "conducted through a convoluted legal structure of trusts and companies apparently designed to protect assets from creditors and minimise taxation liability".
Sparks says the complicated nature of the structures means that, seven years on from Olliver walking out, she still has no idea how much money her ex-husband has or how much of it she is entitled to.
The deal which led to the court's "bad faith" ruling followed the collapse of one of the companies Sparks claims as matrimonial property.
The company, CIT Holdings Ltd, owned a string of properties in St Heliers, one of which was the former family home.
Olliver first bought the properties under a different entity in 2001 then lost them during his 2009 financial collapse when the global financial crisis left him owing $92m. He struck a compromise deal to pay creditors 4 cents for every dollar owed to avoid bankruptcy.
One of his creditors sold the property to recoup the money he owed, with the intermediary then selling the land straight back to a company connected to Olliver - CIT Holdings - four minutes later.
At that time, Olliver had transferred control of the company to Sparks, although - according to her - he continued to exercise control over company decisions.
In 2012, CIT Holdings was back in Olliver's control and borrowed money from the BNZ using the properties as security. Court documents show it defaulted on the mortgage soon after and was insolvent by the end of the year.
Companies Office records show CIT Holdings Ltd was put into liquidation in March 2016 by Inland Revenue - court records showing it hadn't paid GST since 2009.
By then, the BNZ's 2012 $9m loan to CIT Holdings had grown to $13.5m. CIT Holdings Ltd also owed money to entities related to the couple - $3.675m to the Glover No. 2 Trust, the holding company for a family trust (Waimarie Trust Ltd) of which Sparks was a beneficiary.
There was also a $2.249m debt from 2014 to The Bankhouse Trust Ltd, registered as owned by Olliver.
Liquidators set about selling the properties, valued around $20m, to repay creditors but court documents show there was little interest other than by another company owned by Olliver, GMO Trust Ltd.
With no other offers, the liquidators prepared to sell the properties to Olliver's company.
It would have been the third time Olliver or entities he controlled would have brought the properties, which he had tipped as being a profitable development if council zoning rules changed.
The deal fell through when the liquidators refused Olliver's demand the deal include it transferring a debt owed by Sparks and Waimarie Trust Ltd to CIT Holdings. The debt stemmed from Sparks' using the company's money for purposes not related to its operation.
If the claim to the debts had been included in the deal, it would have meant Olliver's company owned the right to pursue the debt.
The Court of Appeal judgment stated: "Mr Olliver pressured the liquidators to accept the offer. He warned that if it was not agreed to, Bankhouse would appoint receivers and carry out a forced sale."
In March 2017, Olliver followed through and appointed Insolvency Management (Auckland) as receiver.
He claimed he was able to do so because the money owed to the Bankhouse Trust - as with the BNZ debt - was secured by General Security Deed. The agreement meant Bankhouse Trust had the right to exercise control over CIT Holdings Ltd to have its debt repaid first.
The receivers - Insolvency Management (Auckland) - then signed a deal to sell the properties to Olliver.
The deal included "such of the other assets of the Vendor (including debtors) as the Vendor wishes to sell and the Purchaser wishes to purchase at a price and on terms acceptable to them".
At the same time, Olliver's GMO Trust Ltd offered $100,000 to the receivers for other assets of CIT Holdings, including those owing the company money.
The liquidators objected, taking the case to the High Court, where it ruled appointing receivers gave Olliver an "inappropriate advantage" because he knew CIT Holdings Ltd was financially struggling at the time, and the security agreement was created to get Bankhouse Trust Ltd more money than it would otherwise receive in a liquidation.
The High Court wouldn't uphold the liquidator's claim the receivers were improperly appointed, which saw the case go to the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal judgment, issued by now-Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann, said there was "good evidence" the purpose for appointing the receiver was to get the Waimarie St properties so as to gain possession of the company accounts.
"As we have noted, Mr Olliver was, at the time, in a prolonged, and it seems from the correspondence, bitter dispute with his estranged wife, Ms Sparks.
"There is nothing to suggest that GMO [Trust Ltd, another company of Olliver's] had any genuine commercial interest in the purchase of the debts.
"The inference to be drawn is that Mr Olliver was attempting to acquire the debts owed by Ms Sparks and Waimarie Trust to enable him to better pursue those debts as part of his personal dispute with her."
Olliver refused to comment on the judgment when contacted by the Herald, saying he had never read it. "This was years ago. I've moved on. I've got no interest." He then disconnected the call.
KPMG liquidator Vivian Fatupaito would not comment on the case, directing the Herald to her public reports filed with the Companies Office.
The reports show the BNZ has been paid in full, and the debt to Inland Revenue had also been resolved. Liquidation documents showed the Waimarie Trust Ltd would receive a payout in line with the $3.675m it was owed, minus the money owed back to the company.
In a sequel to the case, the receivers - Insolvency Management (Auckland) - sought to recover $350,000 in fees from Bankhouse Trust, the cost of the work it had done on the aborted receivership. The case followed the ruling that its appointment as receivers of CIT Holdings Ltd was invalid.
Neither Olliver or his company responded to letters or requests to turn up to court. Iain Nellies, one of those to testify for Insolvency Management (Auckland), told the Herald the debt had been lodged as a charge against money due to Bankhouse Ltd from the liquidation and that the fees would be deducted from that.
Family say there are two people who may have information but are yet to be located.