Mainzeal's Richard Yan is appealing the High Court ruling which demanded he and other directors pay $36 million, saying the decision had erred in law in its findings.

David Chisolm, acting for Yan, this morning confirmed the case going to the Court of Appeal.

The position of ex-Prime Minister Jenny Shipley, ex-Mainzeal chief executive Peter Gomm and director Clive Tilby is yet to be announced. They are all represented by Chapman Tripp.

Yan's notice of appeal outlined the grounds for taking the matter to the higher court, including claiming there was no deterioration in Mainzeal's financial position between when breaches of the Companies Act were said to have occurred in 2011 and when the company went into liquidation in 2013.


Yan was found to have breached the act and caused loss to others including creditors.

He is claiming the High Court erred in its findings on liability, cause and quantum and says he was not a director of Mainzeal between November 2004 and April 2009.

Had he and others resigned, that would simply have caused an earlier liquidation and greater losses to creditors, the appeal notice says.

Losses of $110m by Mainzeal could not be blamed solely on Yan: "The High Court erred in finding that Mr Yan's breach of section 135 [of the Companies Act] should nonetheless be regarded as the cause of an entire loss of $110m."

Factors other than his Companies Act breach caused Mainzeal's failure and the extent of its losses, the appeal says. The court was also mistaken in finding that had Mainzeal owner Richina Pacific been legally committed to supporting Mainzeal, then the failure would have been avoided altogether, the appeal says.

The court was also wrong to find that Yan was more culpable than Shipley, Gomm and Tilby.

No dates have yet been set to hear the matter but the Appeal Court is not expected to do so before early next year. Mainzeal's liquidators might also appeal but nothing has been said yet.

If a number of parties appeal the High Court decision, they will most likely to be heard in one Appeal Court case.