HAVENLEIGH GLOBAL SERVICES LTD & OR v HENDERSON [2016] NZHC 1113

HAVENLEIGH GLOBAL SERVICES LTD & OR v HENDERSON [2016] NZHC 1113

The application to transfer the recusal application under s26N(2) is declined because established practice and authority require the challenged judge to determine recusal applications, it would not be desirable to remove that judge's capacity to decide the matter, and the challenged judge's view is important for any subsequent review.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 1113
Parties
Judgment Creditor (substituted Creditor): Havenleigh Global Services Limited; Judgment Creditor (substituted Creditor): FM Custodians Limited; Judgment Debtor: David Ian Henderson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
25 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy / Insolvency (public Examination) / Interlocutory — Application to Transfer Recusal Application Under S26 N(2) Refused
Outcome
Application to transfer recusal application to the High Court declined
Legal Topics
Recusal, Transfer of Proceedings Under S26 N(2), Judicial Conduct, Costs
Insolvency Law Judicial Recusal Civil Procedure Judicature Act Matters Recusal Transfer of Proceedings Under S26 N(2) Judicial Conduct Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Havenleigh Global Services Limited

Judgment Creditor (substituted Creditor)

FM Custodians Limited

Judgment Creditor (substituted Creditor)

David Ian Henderson

Judgment Debtor

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy / Insolvency (public Examination) / Interlocutory — Application to Transfer Recusal Application Under S26 N(2) Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings under challenge to an Associate Judge's recusal should be transferred to a Judge under s26N(2) of the Judicature Act 1908
  2. 2 Whether the challenged Judge should be disqualified from deciding the recusal application
  3. 3 Whether it is desirable to remove the challenged Judge's capacity to decide the recusal application given established practice and the needs of subsequent review

Ratio Decidendi

The application to transfer the recusal application under s26N(2) is declined because established practice and authority require the challenged judge to determine recusal applications, it would not be desirable to remove that judge's capacity to decide the matter, and the challenged judge's view is important for any subsequent review.

Court Disposition

Application to transfer recusal application to the High Court declined

Orders

  • Application to transfer declined
  • Costs reserved and to be fixed following determination of the substantive application; indication costs should follow the event on a 2B basis