In March, two Lower Hutt business owners were charged with fraud-related offences and their company Ameribuild Ltd was quickly put into liquidation.
They managed to keep their names suppressed by the courts for eight months although that was probably of little comfort to them because they could easily be identified by a lazy Google search.
We wrote on this matter on 4 April: Laundering in Lower Hutt
Name suppression lapsed on 12 November and The Post didn’t muck around, publishing the same day:
The first liquidator’s report was published seven days after the liquidator’s appointment and nine days after the owners were arrested and charged with obtaining by deception and failing to reply with obligations in relation to a computer search – while attempting to flee the country. Their passports have been confiscated. The liabilities figure reported in the first six-monthly report is within a few percent of the initial figure of $3.03 million.
Despite these figures the owners appear to have been operating Ameribuild as a side hustle for at least four years. Jason Westmoreland was the director and 50% shareholder and William Manning was the other 50% shareholder. Manning was quickly dismissed from his main job in the wake of the arrests, despite the name suppression.
Westmoreland held a public sector position that previously involved handling significant amounts of money. While we are unaware of any financial misconduct at the public sector job, we understand that his managers were/are carefully handling the situation.
A few months ago Manning was reportedly looking for work. At a court hearing the defendants, through their lawyer Kate Fitzgibbon, made assertions about media “risking their right to a fair trial”. But Crown counsel Sebastian Hartley, opposing name suppression, said that “even with [Manning’s] name suppressed he hadn’t found work so far… the men’s right to a fair trial had not been put at risk.”
Aside from media simply doing its job, Manning’s job search may also have been hampered by the fact that a Nelson company succeeded in having both the defendants personally placed in receivership in May, and their actual names Google up as being personally in receivership. In June, we contacted Insolvency Practitioner Stephen Khov (who is also handling the E-Cycles liquidation) who explained:
“Individuals can be placed into receivership just like a company can. This all depends on the contractual agreement and security that that individual has entered into. If the individual has agreed to the contracted terms, then they are capable of being placed into receivership.”
This blogsite is mostly about employment law so let’s stand in the shoes of Westmoreland’s public sector boss. We understand that the boss somehow found out before name suppression was granted. What, then, should he/she do to prevent:
- exposing his department to a personal grievance claim?
- taxpayer money being siphoned into the Ameribuild black hole?
- a “negligent retention” PR nightmare?
An apparent intention to abandon his employment without notice is also likely to have been viewed as an act of bad faith. It's a delicate situation and that doesn’t even take into account what appears to be the defendants’ manipulative nature as can be seen from the long list of (alleged) fraud targets, and their relative success in playing the victim card (see comments about media).
Revoking financial delegation was a good start.
Even if he had been suspended or “sent to Coventry” like Milton Waddams from Office Space, it would have been unwise for Westmoreland to claim constructive dismissal because he still had a salary at that point. But now that name suppression has lifted, it’s difficult to see how the retention of that particular employee could be justified. MBIE’s website provides guidance on handling misconduct outside of work: Misconduct | Employment New Zealand
Paper clips won’t count themselves, but we don’t see that as an insurmountable problem.
Tristam Price
Editor, Leighton Associates
Kommentare