In a swiftly delivered judgment issued on 10 November 2025,1 the Supreme Court has allowed an appeal reinstating permanent worldwide anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions which prevent the commencement or pursuit of proceedings and the enforcement of an existing judgment from a US court.
Such injunctions are rarely considered by the New Zealand courts, however, in this case, had been granted by the High Court.2 The orders restrain Kenneth Wikeley, co-founder of Rainbow’s End and a resident of Queensland, and parties associated with him, from pursuing proceedings or enforcing a judgment made in Kentucky – anywhere in the world.
The wide-reaching High Court orders were overturned by the Court of Appeal prior to the Supreme Court’s intervention.3
Background
The Supreme Court issued a result-only judgment in Kea Investments Limited v Wikeley,4 with the full reasons to follow at a later date. The judgment stems from a complex international dispute spanning several jurisdictions:
- Wikeley Family Trustee Limited (WFTL), a New Zealand company controlled by Mr Wikeley, claimed to have a “Coal Agreement” with Kea Investments Limited (Kea), a British Virgin Islands company associated with a New Zealand businessman. The Coal Agreement purported to commit Kea to provide capital to fund coal investments presented by Mr Wikeley.
- The purported agreement included a contractual jurisdiction clause specifying that the agreement was governed by the laws of Kentucky.
- WFTL sued Kea for US$123.75 million (plus interest and costs) in a Kentucky Court based on a breach of the “Coal Agreement”.
- WFTL obtained a default judgment against Kea (the Kentucky Judgment) after Kea failed to respond to the proceeding, because its agent failed to bring it to the company’s attention.
- Following the Kentucky Judgment, Kea received a statutory demand in the British Virgin Islands for the US$123.75 million (plus interest and costs) judgment debt.
- Kea’s subsequent application to the Kentucky Court to set aside the Kentucky Judgment was denied. Kea then filed appeals in the Kentucky courts.
- Related proceedings were also commenced in other United States Courts and in Queensland.
Following the initiation of overseas enforcement action, Kea issued proceedings in the New Zealand High Court against WFTL, Mr Wikeley, and other related parties (the Respondents). They:
- Claimed that the “Coal Agreement” was a forgery and that the Kentucky Judgment was obtained by fraud as part of a wider conspiracy involving the Respondents.
- Sought, among other relief, permanent worldwide anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions against the Respondents.5
An anti-suit injunction is a court order restraining a party from initiating or continuing proceedings in a foreign jurisdiction. An anti-enforcement injunction prevents a party from enforcing a foreign judgment or arbitral award it has already obtained. Both are seen as extraordinary remedies given their potential to interfere with foreign legal processes and, as a result, they are rarely considered by the New Zealand courts.
The High Court ruling
The High Court heard the case by formal proof, after the Respondents failed to file a defence. It found in favour of Kea. In particular, the High Court:6
- Found that the “Coal Agreement” was a forgery and legally void.
- Found that the Kentucky Judgment had been obtained by fraud.
- Issued the permanent worldwide anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions sought by Kea against the Respondents.
The Court of Appeal decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's substantive findings of fraud by the Respondents but discharged the permanent worldwide anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions.7
The Court’s decision to discharge the orders was based on the principle of international comity. It considered the principle required a New Zealand court to respect the interests of a foreign legal system when administering justice within its own territory.8
The Court of Appeal held that a New Zealand court must be “extremely cautious” before issuing anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions, on the basis that justice would not be done in a foreign court and therefore such injunctions should be a “measure of last resort”.9 The Court concluded that comity required a New Zealand court to “at least await the outcome of the appeal process” in Kentucky before considering intervention.10
The Supreme Court’s result judgment
The Supreme Court granted Kea leave to appeal on the single question of whether the Court of Appeal was correct to discharge the injunctions.11 The Court also dismissed an application for leave to appeal from Mr Wikeley that challenged the High Court’s findings of fraud, and the Court of Appeal’s decision to uphold those findings.12 At the Supreme Court hearing, Kea submitted that the New Zealand courts must grant immediate injunctions to restrain the Respondents’ continued fraud. It argued that it had no connection to Kentucky, and that the jurisdiction of the Kentucky court had been “invalidly manufactured” by the Respondents, as “an instrument of the fraud itself”.
Just four days after the hearing concluded, the Supreme Court delivered its result judgment, allowing the appeal and fully reinstating the permanent High Court orders.13 The Court noted that it was delivering a result judgment “having regard to the existence of live proceedings” in the United States.14
the implications?
Although the implications of the decision will depend on the Court’s full reasons, the Supreme Court’s intervention may signal a more robust approach to the use of anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions in cases of established fraud, including where foreign proceedings are ongoing. The Supreme Court’s full reasons are awaited with interest given the few cases in New Zealand which have considered these exceptional remedies.
If you have any questions about this article, please get in touch with the contacts listed or your usual Bell Gully adviser.
1. Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley [2025] NZSC 156.
2. Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3260 at [156]; and Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3532 at [7].
3. Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609, [2024] 3 NZLR 901 at [164].
4. Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley [2025] NZSC 156.
5. One of the Respondents, Wikeley Incorporated, also failed an application for a worldwide anti-suit injunction against Kea in Kentucky. It is not clear whether that application has been determined, and the Respondents would face risks taking steps progressing such an application in light of the New Zealand orders.
6. Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd (in interim liq) [2023] NZHC 3260 at [143] and [156].
7. Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609, [2024] 3 NZLR 901 at [134]–[146].
8. At [164], [186] and [194]–[195].
11. Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley [2025] NZSC 75.
12. Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2025] NZSC 76. In granting leave to Kea, the Supreme Court extended a stay of the Court of Appeal’s decision (which had been granted by the Court of Appeal), meaning that the injunctions remained in effect pending the appeal’s final determination: Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley [2025] NZSC 75 at [6]; and Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 686, (2024) 26 PRNZ 667.
13. Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley [2025] NZSC 156.
Disclaimer: This publication is necessarily brief and general in nature. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.
