Training Centre Under Threat: When Family's Go To War.

[Chief Stipe]

Wealthy Auckland family in $17m legal fight, mum accuses son of 'misappropriating' funds

www.nzherald.co.nz 07 January 2026 
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland/auckland-nakhle-family-in-17m-court-battle-judge-clears-way-for-liquidation-case/

A High Court decision from November sets out the history of the financial fracas, which is linked to a complex group of companies associated with the Nakhle family.https://bitofayarn.com

The family have interests in a diverse portfolio of industries, including horse racing, property investment, quarrying, early childhood education and a luxury charter launch.

They are also politically connected - National MP Rima Nakhle is a member of the family through marriage (there is no suggestion she is involved in the court action).

The Nakhle family have featured on the 2018 NBR richlist and were estimated to be worth $200m.

But their financial success has been marred by infighting and costly legal action, which has driven a wedge between mother and son.

“There is a significant dispute among the family members that has resulted in multiple proceedings in the High Court,” the November ruling by Associate Judge Grant Brittain says.

Henriette Nakhle and her son, Daniel Nakhle, are the directors of defendant companies, Karaka Estate Ltd (KEL) and Byerley Park Ltd (BPL), both linked to South Auckland thoroughbred racing facility Byerley Park.

Henriette, who is Honorary Consul for Lebanon in New Zealand, and Daniel are in a “deadlock” regarding management of the two companies and associated trusts, and ownership of their assets, the decision says.

The deadlock is described as “fundamental and irretrievable”.

Last year Henriette applied for orders to put KEL and BPL into liquidation on the grounds they were insolvent.

The Honorary Consul of Lebanon in New Zealand, Henriette Nakhle, MNZM, QSM, with Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters.

Daniel challenged the application, arguing the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the liquidation proceedings.

He applied for a stay and an order restraining advertising of the proceedings, primarily on the basis of a clause in the trust deed that provides for alternative dispute resolution, including mediation.

He argued that liquidation proceedings could harm the companies and put them in a difficult situation with their lenders.https://bitofayarn.com

However, Associate Judge Brittain dismissed Daniel’s application in November.

“I do not consider that there is any reasonable prospect of Mrs Nakhle and Mr Nakhle resolving their deadlock by utilising the dispute resolution process.

“The issues between Mrs Nakhle and Mr Nakhle go further than a management deadlock. There has been an irretrievable breakdown of trust.

“I am satisfied that the balance of convenience favours these proceedings continuing.”

Financial feud divides family

Henriette and her husband, Elias, arrived in New Zealand from Lebanon in the 1960s, raising three boys.

The decision says the couple operated a successful business during the 1980s and 1990s which enabled them to establish a group of companies and “generate significant wealth for the family”.

In 2004, the trusts were established to acquire land in Kingseat. BPL and KEL each acquired neighbouring property and entered into a joint venture. BPL operates the Byerley horse breeding and training facility on both properties, which operates at a loss.

In 2008, the Nakhle Treasury Trust was established to act as a treasury for the group, with Nakhle Treasury Ltd (NTL) its sole trustee.

Lebanese Honorary Consul Henriette Nakhle (centre left) surrounded by family after being recognised as a Member of NZ Order of Merit in the 2023 New Year's Honours for her contribution to the Lebanese Community.

The decision says Henriette and Daniel are the directors of NTL and that Daniel has had primary responsibility for managing the group and operating NTL.

Daniel “fell out” with his parents in 2014, Brittain’s judgment said. This was followed by a period of reconciliation the following year “and negotiations among family members” regarding division of the group’s assets.https://bitofayarn.com

Daniel claims “binding terms of settlement” were agreed in 2015, making him the beneficial owner of both KEL and BPL assets.

Henriette and other parties deny they are bound by the 2015 agreement.

The decision says NTL has made “significant distributions and advancements” to KEL and BPL. Henriette refused to approve further advances in 2023.

“Mr Nakhle has been funding the operating costs of KEL and BPL since 2020, resulting in a related party loan account.”

In December 2022, Daniel filed High Court proceedings against various group and family members seeking to enforce the 2015 agreement.

Several other proceedings have taken place, including claims by NTL to recover distributions and advances to BPL and KEL totalling more than $17m.

Daniel says the funds are not repayable.

Attempts at a facilitation process ended without resolution in December 2024.

“Mrs Nakhle says that the deadlock is fundamental and irretrievable, and she has lost all trust and confidence in Mr Nakhle,” the decision says.

“She says that she and her husband placed significant trust in Mr Nakhle to manage the group for the interests of the wider family and their trust was misplaced. She alleges that Mr Nakhle has misappropriated a significant amount of money.”

Dispute heads to formal liquidation hearing

The judge considered the resolution procedures set out in the trust deed, but ruled the matter could not be settled through arbitration or mediation due to the entrenched and opposing positions of the parties.

The ruling said Henriette filed expert evidence suggesting both BPL and KEL were insolvent.

Daniel’s assertion that both companies were solvent assumed his success in other litigation and his willingness to continue injecting funds into KEL and BPL to meet operating expenses and losses, the decision said.

However, his funding meant both companies incurring further debt to a related party that had not been approved by the boards, the judgment said.https://bitofayarn.com

Sybelle Nahra Nakhle and Daniel Nakhle. Photo / Norrie Montgomery

In declining Daniel’s application for a stay, the judge ruled it was not inevitable the companies would be liquidated, which was a “last resort”.

There might be another option such as a receiver and manager being appointed. These decisions should be made during a substantive liquidation hearing.

The judge said there was no evidence to support claims the companies could face difficulty with their lenders should the proceedings continue and be advertised.

The proceedings were subsequently posted in a public notice on December 1 and have now been set down for a High Court hearing on April 29.

The Herald approached Henriette and Daniel through their lawyers but both declined to comment.

[Chief Stipe]

For those who like to read legalese - The Judgement from Judge Brittain.

 

Nakhle vs Byerley Park 3 November 2025.pdf

[curious]

Yes. I've been looking at that. Although there may be an alternative, it seems liquidation is highly likely, if not inevitable.

Edited yesterday at 08:14 PM by curious

[Murray Fish]

1 hour ago, Chief Stipe said:

For those who like to read legalese - The Judgement from Judge Brittain.

 

Nakhle vs Byerley Park 3 November 2025.pdf 335.9 kB · 2 downloads

For those that don't like A.I. please look the other way!!!

To the question "can you please summarize this case? is one party in a a stronger position than the other?"

 

### **Summary of the Case**

This is a judgment from the New Zealand High Court concerning an application to place two companies, **Karaka Estate Limited (KEL)** and **Byerley Park Limited (BPL)**, into liquidation. The key points are:

1.  **Parties and Dispute:** The plaintiff, **Henriette Nakhle** (the mother), and her son, **Daniel Nakhle**, are the sole directors and shareholders of the two companies, which act as trustees for family trusts. They are in a complete **deadlock** over the management of the companies and how to respond to existing High Court litigation (specifically, a claim for the recovery of millions of dollars in loans and distributions from a related family entity).
2.  **The Applications:**
    *   Mrs. Nakhle applied to liquidate the companies on the grounds of **insolvency** and that it is **just and equitable** to do so.
    *   Mr. Nakhle applied to **stay (pause)** the liquidation proceedings and prevent their public advertising. He argued that the trust deeds contained an **Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) clause** requiring the directors to mediate/arbitrate disputes before going to court.
3.  **Court's Decision:** Associate Judge Brittain **dismissed Mr. Nakhle's application** and allowed the liquidation proceedings to continue. The key findings were:
    *   **Jurisdiction:** The ADR clause does **not** strip the Court of its statutory jurisdiction to order liquidation. While such clauses are a factor to consider, they do not prevent a party from seeking liquidation.
    *   **No Stay Justified:** The Court declined to stay the proceedings to force mediation because:
        *   The **deadlock was fundamental and irretrievable**, with a complete breakdown of trust.
        *   The underlying dispute was already before the Court in other proceedings, and the parties' positions were "diametrically opposed."
        *   There was **no reasonable prospect** that mediation or arbitration could resolve the core governance deadlock.
        *   There was **expert evidence of insolvency**, and an insolvent trustee company should generally be liquidated.
    *   **Next Steps:** The liquidation proceedings will proceed to a substantive hearing. Advertising of the proceedings was temporarily restrained to allow time for Mr. Nakhle to inform lenders.

### **Assessment of Relative Strength**

Based on this interlocutory judgment, **Henriette Nakhle (the Plaintiff/Mother) is in a significantly stronger legal position than Daniel Nakhle (the Defendant Son).**

**Reasons why Mrs. Nakhle's position is stronger:**

1.  **Won the Immediate Legal Battle:** The court **rejected all of Mr. Nakhle's key arguments** (the jurisdiction protest and the request for a stay). Her application to proceed with liquidation remains on track.
2.  **Court's Factual Findings Favoured Her:** The judge accepted her evidence on critical points:
    *   The deadlock was **"fundamental and irretrievable."**
    *   There had been an **"irretrievable breakdown of trust."**
    *   The expert evidence of **insolvency** was persuasive, whereas Mr. Nakhle's solvency arguments depended on him winning other litigation and continuing to fund the companies unilaterally.
3.  **Public Policy Leans Her Way:** The judge affirmed the principle that **insolvent trustee companies should "almost invariably" be liquidated** to protect the trust. This strengthens her "just and equitable" argument.
4.  **Costs Award:** The judge indicated a preliminary view that **Mrs. Nakhle is entitled to costs** for successfully opposing Mr. Nakhle's applications, a typical indicator of the winning party.

**Mr. Nakhle's Weaker Position:**

*   His primary defensive strategy—relying on the ADR clause to derail the liquidation—**failed**.
*   The court found his proposed solution (more mediation) was **futile** given the depth of the dispute and the existing litigation.
*   His arguments on solvency were viewed as **contingent and speculative**, relying on his success in other cases.

**Conclusion:** While the final decision on liquidation is still to be made, this judgment is a substantial setback for Daniel Nakhle. The court's reasoning strongly aligns with Henriette Nakhle's view of the dispute as an unmanageable deadlock requiring the statutory solution of liquidation. She holds the clear upper hand moving toward the substantive hearing.

[Chief Stipe]

You only have to read as far as paragraph [8]  to understand the core issue.

[8] In 2004, the trusts were established to acquire land in Kingseat. BPL and KEL each acquired a neighbouring property and they entered into a joint venture. At present, BPL operates a horse breeding and training facility on both properties, which operates at a loss.

Here comes the Real Estate Developers.  Don't be surprised if that wonderful New Zealand Bloodstock facility at Karaka is sold for development sooner or later.

[Murray Fish]

36 minutes ago, Chief Stipe said:

Here comes the Real Estate Developers. 

Or, a nice chance for Yuesheng Zhang and Yulong  to ride in and... 🐎

[Special Agent]

3 hours ago, Chief Stipe said:

Here comes the Real Estate Developers.  Don't be surprised if that wonderful New Zealand Bloodstock facility at Karaka is sold for development sooner or later.

There was mention of a sales complex being part of the new Waikato training facility so, the shock should be at a minimum.