Sir George Fistonich founded Villa Maria in 1961, but concerns by banks saw receivers appointed and the business sold - triggering a flurry of legal actions. Photo / NZME
Sir George Fistonich founded Villa Maria in 1961, but concerns by banks saw receivers appointed and the business sold - triggering a flurry of legal actions. Photo / NZME
The opening salvo in a long-brewing war between Sir George Fistonich and receivers who sold his Villa Maria winery has ended in defeat for the knighted vintner.
A ruling released by the High Court in Auckland saw Justice Gerard van Bohemen dismiss attempts by Fistonich to prevent receivers from settingaside millions to defend themselves against a flurry of claims he has lodged against them.
The origins of the dispute, according to the ruling, dates back to concerns from Villa Maria's bankers ANZ and Rabobank about governance and management and debt levels.
In 2020 Fistonich agreed to explore the sale of the winery business and surplus land, but following a sales process he believed prices on offer were too low and withdrew his consent.
This triggered a default and saw receivers Brendon Gibson and Neale Jackson appointed who settled the sales, but the process also served to crystallise the acrimony.
The stoush has seen each side gear up with QCs - Jim Farmer acting for Fistonich, Adam Ross for receivers - with today's ruling an opening skirmish ahead of three substantives claims Fistonich today said he still intended to bring.
After settling bank debt the sales process left a surplus of $40m - due to an entity controlled by Fistonich - but the prospect of legal challenges saw Gibson and Jackson keep back $5.16m as a contingency to defend themselves and their actions as receivers.
Villa Maria assets - including this estate in Mangere - were sold in 2021 by receivers, but at prices company founder Sir George Fistonich claims were a significant undervalue. Photo / Supplied
In a hearing earlier this month Farmer, acting for Fistonich, sought orders from the court preventing receivers from using the $5.16m on the basis that part of the claim against them concerned allegations that in the sale of assets they were negligent and a breach of fiduciary duty.
Justice van Bohemen agreed with counsel for the receivers that: "It would be contrary to public policy as well as the accepted principal that a receivers is ordinarily entitled to an indemnity and lien in respect of their costs incurring the carrying out [of] their duties as receiver."
A subsidiary challenge from Fistonich, that the sum set aside from receivers as a contingency to defend themselves was unreasonable, was also dismissed.
Fistonich said today's result left him "disillusioned," but vowed to battle on.
"I will not let this deter me from seeking justice for the sale of Villa Maria at an obvious undervalue," he said.
