GORDON WALLACE CAMERON McNAB & ORS v ASSOCIATE JUDGE MATTHEWS & ORS [2014] NZHC 580

GORDON WALLACE CAMERON McNAB & ORS v ASSOCIATE JUDGE MATTHEWS & ORS [2014] NZHC 580

The habeas corpus applications were dismissed because the applicants were not 'detained' within the meaning of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001; bankruptcy adjudications remain valid until set aside and the Insolvency Act provides appropriate statutory remedies (discharge, annulment, appeal and consent procedures for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 580
Parties
Applicants: Gordon Wallace Cameron McNab & Ors; Applicant/plaintiff: Gabrielle Paulette Mathiesen; Applicant/plaintiff: Stuart Graeme Spurr; Respondents/defendants: Associate Judge Matthews & Ors
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
26 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Arising From Bankruptcy Adjudications / High Court Judgment Disposing of Applications After Rehearing
Outcome
Applications of 26 February 2014 and 28 February 2014 dismissed
Legal Topics
Detention, Jurisdiction, Bankruptcy Adjudication, Standing, Urgency, Annulment, Judicial Immunity, Procedural Dismissal on the Papers
Habeas Corpus Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Detention Jurisdiction Bankruptcy Adjudication Standing +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Wallace Cameron McNab & Ors

Applicants

Gabrielle Paulette Mathiesen

Applicant/plaintiff

Stuart Graeme Spurr

Applicant/plaintiff

Associate Judge Matthews & Ors

Respondents/defendants

Procedural Posture

Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus Arising From Bankruptcy Adjudications / High Court Judgment Disposing of Applications After Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether orders adjudging applicants bankrupt constitute 'detention' under the Habeas Corpus Act 2001
  2. 2 Whether the High Court may dismiss a habeas corpus application on the papers without a hearing
  3. 3 Whether habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy to challenge bankruptcy adjudications

Ratio Decidendi

The habeas corpus applications were dismissed because the applicants were not 'detained' within the meaning of the Habeas Corpus Act 2001; bankruptcy adjudications remain valid until set aside and the Insolvency Act provides appropriate statutory remedies (discharge, annulment, appeal and consent procedures for overseas travel), so habeas corpus was not the appropriate remedy and the applications were an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Applications of 26 February 2014 and 28 February 2014 dismissed

Orders

  • Application for rehearing (filed 17 March 2014) granted
  • Orders of Associate Judge Mander dated 28 February 2014 set aside and the matters reconsidered