Forgery claims spark drama in Tua case

Martin Pugh leaving the High Court yesterday. Picture / Kenny Rodger

The multimillion-dollar land dispute between David Tua and his former managers took a dramatic turn late yesterday when a lawyer suggested abandoning the High Court case.

Justin Toebes, representing Martin Pugh and Kevin Barry, was trying to prevent Tua's lawyer, Tony Molloy, QC, from questioning Mr Pugh about alleged forgeries.

Dr Molloy outlined his intention to cross-examine Mr Pugh about transactions in Vanuatu involving Sports Tech Ltd - a company in the name of Mr Pugh's associate, Richard Gregory (formerly Richard Booth) - and a Tuaman Inc company minute that Dr Molloy said was a forgery designed to deceive the court-appointed accountants.

"This won't be the only forgery I will be referring to," Dr Molloy said.

Mr Toebes said it was irrelevant whether someone was or was not a forger when the issue before the court did not involve a document.

The nub of the High Court case over ownership of a multimillion-dollar block of coastal land at Pakiri, north of Auckland, hangs on a conversation in April 2001 when Mr Pugh was showing Tua the land.

What happens to the 50 per cent share Mr Pugh and Mr Barry claim is theirs depends on whether they held their shares in an "express trust" for Tua.

It is for Justice Hugh Williams to decide whether an express trust was formed at this time, and much hangs on what was said by the parties. But their versions of the conversation are poles apart.

Mr Pugh claims nothing was said to Tua to justify his claimed belief that the property was for him alone. He and Mr Barry claim it was always understood they and Tua would jointly invest in property, but there is no written agreement to support this.

Mr Toebes: "Whether someone is a forger, well it may have relevance, but not in a case where we don't have a document."

Dr Molloy: "There wasn't a written declaration of trust. It seems there are many important agreements in this company that are not recorded in writing. It leaves a lot of leeway for deniability."

Mr Toebes suggested the hearing might better be abandoned and the disputes argued "from go to whoa".

In allowing Dr Molloy to proceed on his line of questioning when court resumes this morning, Justice Williams said credibility was an issue in the case and the dishonest intent involved in forgery might affect credibility.

Mr Toebes: "You have none of the documents [alleged to involve forgery]. How can you rule on forgery?"

Justice Williams said he might not be able to, and Tua's lawyer might not get far, but he could proceed as long as it was relevant to which version of the critical conversation was to be believed.