WATTS v HAMPTON (A BANKRUPT) [2018] NZHC 1866

WATTS v HAMPTON (A BANKRUPT) [2018] NZHC 1866

Although discharge was appropriate after five years, the Court imposed a four year period of supervised conditions (prohibiting management, directorship and certain employments without Court leave) because the bankrupt's history of tax non‑compliance, failure to cooperate, problematic conduct over trust and property proceeds, and repeated litigation created a real risk to the commercial community and justified restrictions to protect public interest and commercial morality.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 1866
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Minter Ellison Rudd Watts; Judgment Debtor: David John Hampton; Supporting Creditor: Commissioner of Inland Revenue; Objector: Official Assignee
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
26 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Objection to Automatic Discharge Under Insolvency Act 2006 / Public Examination and Discharge Hearing Following Official Assignee Objection
Outcome
Bankrupt discharged subject to conditions
Legal Topics
Automatic Discharge, Objection to Discharge, Public Examination, Director Disqualification, Banning Orders, Misfeasance Proceedings, Failure to Disclose Assets, Trust Asset Disputes
Insolvency Bankruptcy Tax Law Civil Procedure Trusts Law Company Law Automatic Discharge Objection to Discharge +6 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minter Ellison Rudd Watts

Judgment Creditor

David John Hampton

Judgment Debtor

Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Supporting Creditor

Official Assignee

Objector

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Objection to Automatic Discharge Under Insolvency Act 2006 / Public Examination and Discharge Hearing Following Official Assignee Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bankrupt should be automatically discharged or discharged subject to conditions
  2. 2 Whether it is necessary in the public interest to impose bans on management or directorship without Court leave
  3. 3 Whether the bankrupt's conduct before and during bankruptcy and failure to comply with duties justify conditions

Ratio Decidendi

Although discharge was appropriate after five years, the Court imposed a four year period of supervised conditions (prohibiting management, directorship and certain employments without Court leave) because the bankrupt's history of tax non‑compliance, failure to cooperate, problematic conduct over trust and property proceeds, and repeated litigation created a real risk to the commercial community and justified restrictions to protect public interest and commercial morality.

Court Disposition

Bankrupt discharged subject to conditions

Orders

  • The public examination is concluded.
  • David John Hampton is discharged from bankruptcy on Monday, 30 July 2018 at 10:00 am.