WEST V THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE SC 82/2007
Leave to appeal refused because the Court is satisfied the applicant's legal contentions have no real prospect of success: the beneficial interest passed to the Official Assignee under s 42 and could lawfully be sold, and the applicant's subsequent discharge did not terminate the Official Assignee's prior power to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- SC 82/2007
- Parties
- Applicant: Lionel Andrew West; Respondent: The Official Assignee
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 11 March 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Leave Application Dismissed
- Outcome
- application for leave to appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Vesting of Beneficial Interest, Power of Official Assignee to Sell Bankrupt's Property, Effect of Discharge From Bankruptcy, Statutory Interpretation of S 42 and S 107(1) Insolvency Act 1967, Supreme Court Leave Criteria Under S 13(2) Supreme Court Act 2003
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lionel Andrew West
Applicant
The Official Assignee
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Leave Application Dismissed
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's one‑third beneficial interest vested in the applicant at the time of bankruptcy
- 2 Whether the Official Assignee had power to sell that beneficial interest
- 3 Whether the applicant's discharge under s 107(1) terminated the Official Assignee's right to dispose of the interest
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal refused because the Court is satisfied the applicant's legal contentions have no real prospect of success: the beneficial interest passed to the Official Assignee under s 42 and could lawfully be sold, and the applicant's subsequent discharge did not terminate the Official Assignee's prior power to dispose of that interest; no interests of justice justification for leave under s 13(2).
Court Disposition
application for leave to appeal dismissed
Orders
- Leave to appeal dismissed
- Costs awarded to respondent in the sum of $1500
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
WEST V THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE SC 82/2007 11 March 2008IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 82/2007 [2008] NZSC 14BETWEEN LIONEL ANDREW WEST Applicant AND THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE Respondent Court: Elias CJ, McGrath and Anderson JJ Counsel: Applicant in person G A J Stanish and R J Ellis for Respondent Judgment: 11 March 2008JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs of $1500 to the respondent. REASONS[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal to this Court against a judgment of the Court of Appeal which held that the Official Assignee had acted within lawful powers in selling the applicant's one-third beneficial interest in a property owned by the estate of the applicant's father. [2] In June 1991 Mr West was adjudicated bankrupt. The Official Assignee took the view that the applicant's beneficial interest passed to the Official Assignee under s 42 of the Insolvency Act 1967 as "property of the bankrupt". The interest was sold by the Official Assignee in 1994. By then the applicant had been discharged under s 107(1). [3] The main point the applicant wishes to argue in this Court is that the Official Assignee could not sell the beneficial interest because it had not vested in theapplicant at the time of his bankruptcy. He also wishes to argue that his discharge from bankruptcy had the effect of terminating the Official Assignee's right to dispose of that interest. [4] We are satisfied that both of these contentions of law by the applicant have no prospect of success and accordingly cannot be a proper basis for an appeal to this Court. Nor do any of the other matters referred to by the applicant raise any point that could make it in the interests of justice under s 13(2) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 for this Court to hear and determine the appeal. [5] In these circumstances the application for leave must be dismissed with costs of $1500 to the respondent.Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent