ALUMINIUM PLUS WELLINGTON LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v SHAW [2018] NZHC 281

ALUMINIUM PLUS WELLINGTON LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) v SHAW [2018] NZHC 281

The statutory prerequisites of s13 were prima facie satisfied and the debtor failed to discharge the onus of showing substantial reasons to question the judgment or to justify halting proceedings under s38; alleged perjury/private prosecution did not provide sufficient basis to stay adjudication, so adjudication orders were made against both Shaws.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 281
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Aluminium Plus Wellington Limited (in liquidation); Judgment Debtor: Ian Alexander Shaw; Judgment Debtor: Angela Claire Shaw
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
21 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Adjudication for Bankruptcy Under the Insolvency Act 2006 / Application for Adjudication (hearing and Reserved Judgment)
Outcome
Adjudication orders made against Ian Alexander Shaw and Angela Claire Shaw; application to stay/halt proceedings declined
Legal Topics
Adjudication, Bankruptcy Notices, Acts of Bankruptcy, Stay/halt of Proceedings, Perjury Allegation, Counterclaim, Companies Act Ss 135 137
Insolvency Bankruptcy Company Law Criminal Law (perjury Allegation) Adjudication Bankruptcy Notices Acts of Bankruptcy Stay/halt of Proceedings +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aluminium Plus Wellington Limited (in liquidation)

Judgment Creditor

Ian Alexander Shaw

Judgment Debtor

Angela Claire Shaw

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Adjudication for Bankruptcy Under the Insolvency Act 2006 / Application for Adjudication (hearing and Reserved Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether adjudication orders should be made under Insolvency Act s13
  2. 2 Whether the court should look behind a judgment to determine if the debt is truly owed
  3. 3 Whether to halt/adjourn the adjudication under s38 to permit a proposed private prosecution for perjury

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory prerequisites of s13 were prima facie satisfied and the debtor failed to discharge the onus of showing substantial reasons to question the judgment or to justify halting proceedings under s38; alleged perjury/private prosecution did not provide sufficient basis to stay adjudication, so adjudication orders were made against both Shaws.

Court Disposition

Adjudication orders made against Ian Alexander Shaw and Angela Claire Shaw; application to stay/halt proceedings declined

Orders

  • Adjudicate Ian Alexander Shaw bankrupt
  • Adjudicate Angela Claire Shaw bankrupt