Deals with Sir Owen Glenn were “elaborate worldwide fraud” says Court
The New Zealand Supreme Court has released its full reasons in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley 2026 NZSC 97, explaining why it restored sweeping worldwide injunctions against former New Zealand businessman Ken Wikeley, now resident in Australia, and his associated entities.
The Court had allowed Kea’s appeal and reinstated the High Court’s orders in November 2025; the 31 July 2026 judgment sets out in detail why international comity had to give way to the need to shut down a fraudulent foreign judgment.courtsofnz.govt+1
The dispute arises out of what the Supreme Court described as an “elaborate worldwide fraud” centred on a forged 2012 “Coal Agreement”.
The agreement purported to bind Kea Investments Ltd, a British Virgin Islands company associated with Sir Owen Glenn, (pictured with Eric Watson) to fund coal‑mining investments in the United States, with an exclusive jurisdiction clause pointing to the Fayette Circuit Court in Lexington, Kentucky, and applicable federal law.
In reality, the Coal Agreement never existed. It was fabricated and deployed by Wikeley, co‑conspirator Eric Watson and their corporate vehicles (including Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd, Wikeley Incorporated and USA Asset Holdings Inc) as part of a multi‑faceted scheme to extract money from Kea.
That forged agreement was then used to obtain a US$123.75 million default judgment in the Fayette Circuit Court. The New Zealand High Court, and later the Court of Appeal, accepted Kea’s case that the Coal Agreement was a forgery and that the Kentucky judgment had been obtained by fraud.
In two substantial decisions — 2023 NZHC 3260 and 2023 NZHC 3532 — the High Court granted permanent anti‑suit and anti‑enforcement injunctions, declared the Kentucky judgment fraudulent, awarded damages and costs, and placed Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd into interim liquidation.
Those orders built on an earlier, widely‑noted interim anti‑enforcement injunction in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd 2022 NZHC 2881, thought to be the first of its kind in New Zealand.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the fraud findings and the declaration that the Kentucky judgment was obtained by fraud, but took a markedly different view on the injunctions.
International Comity
Concerned about international comity, the Court of Appeal discharged the permanent anti‑suit and anti‑enforcement orders, reasoning that New Zealand courts should avoid interfering with the processes of the Fayette Circuit Court, even in circumstances where fraud had been established. In effect, comity was treated as a reason to step back and allow a New Zealand‑connected entity to continue pressing a fraudulent foreign judgment abroad.
The Supreme Court has now firmly rejected that approach.
In a unanimous decision, it allowed Kea’s appeal, reinstated the High Court’s permanent worldwide anti‑suit and anti‑enforcement injunctions, confirmed the interim liquidation of Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd, refused a stay of enforcement, and ordered Wikeley and key respondents to pay NZ$250,000 in costs plus usual disbursements, with a further NZ$30,000 directed to the liquidators.
The Court characterised the conduct as an “elaborate worldwide fraud” and an “extreme example of vexatious and oppressive conduct” that justified exceptional injunctive relief. It made clear that Kea was entitled to orders preventing Wikeley and his companies from pursuing or enforcing the fraudulent Kentucky judgment anywhere in the world, against Kea.
The Court’s reasons will be compulsory reading for anyone litigating private international law and conflict of laws in New Zealand.
The Court treats comity as a principle of mutual respect between courts, not a straightjacket and certainly not a licence for fraud. Once New Zealand courts have made final findings that a foreign judgment has been procured by forgery and fraud, comity does not oblige them to stand aside while a New Zealand‑incorporated defendant weaponises that judgment abroad. The Supreme Court’s analysis knits together anti‑suit and anti‑enforcement principles, jurisdictional control over New Zealand companies, and the limits of deference to foreign courts when fraudulent judgments are in play.
Cases of this kind remain rare, which explains why litigators have been watching Kea v Wikeley closely from the interim injunction stage through to the Supreme Court’s final word. With 2026 NZSC 97, New Zealand now has a leading authority on when domestic courts can restrain parties from pursuing or enforcing foreign judgments obtained through fraud.
