Hamish McIntosh v John Howard Ross Fisk and David John Bridgman - SC 39/2014
Media releases
Summary
Result
B The approved questions are:
(i) Whether an order should have been made setting aside all or part of the payment made by Ross Asset Management Limited (RAM) to the applicant and requiring the applicant to pay the relevant amount to the respondents.
(ii) If so, whether the order should have been to set aside the payment of all of the $954,047 paid to the applicant or $454,047, being the difference between the amount paid to the applicant and the $500,000 he invested with RAM.
26 May 2016
___________
A The appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
B The appellant is to pay costs of $15,000 to the respondents together with reasonable disbursements.
26 May 2017
_________________
A The appellant is to pay interest at the rate of five per cent per annum on the sum of $454,047.62 from the date of the liquidators’ appointment (17 December 2012).
B There is no order as to costs.
31 August 2017
Hearing Transcripts
Related Documents
High Court decision — FISK v HAMISH McINTOSH [2015] NZHC 1403 [22 June 2015]
Court of Appeal decision — MCINTOSH v FISK AND ANOR [2016] NZCA 74 [16 March 2016]
Leave judgment - leave granted — HAMISH MCINTOSH v JOHN HOWARD ROSS FISK AND DAVID JOHN BRIDGMAN [2016] NZSC 58 [26 May 2016] (PDF 13 KB)
Substantive judgment — HAMISH MCINTOSH v JOHN HOWARD ROSS FISK AND DAVID JOHN BRIDGMAN [2017] NZSC 78 [26 May 2017] (PDF 587 KB)
Additional document — Media release substantive judgment 26 May 2017 (PDF 265 KB)
Supreme court decision — HAMISH MCINTOSH v JOHN HOWARD ROSS FISK AND DAVID JOHN BRIDGMAN [2017] NZSC 129 [31 August 2017] (PDF 206 KB)