THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v HANNING [2013] NZHC 3344

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v HANNING [2013] NZHC 3344

The substituted service order was improperly obtained because the Commissioner failed to disclose material information (ownership of an Auckland property and available contact details) and did not demonstrate reasonable follow-up steps after a significant delay; as a result the adjudication should not have been made...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] NZHC 3344
Parties
Judgment Creditor: The Commissioner of Inland Revenue; Judgment Debtor: John Lindsay Hanning; Assignee: Official Assignee
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Adjudication and Annulment / Annulment Hearing (post Adjudication)
Outcome
Order annulling the adjudication of bankruptcy made 4 September 2013 under s 309(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2006; exercise of discretion in favour of annulment subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Annulment of Bankruptcy Under S 309(1)(a), Without Notice Applications, Duty of Disclosure, Exercise of Judicial Discretion, Adjudication for Bankruptcy
Insolvency Civil Procedure Tax Law Service of Process Substituted Service Annulment of Bankruptcy Under S 309(1)(a) Without Notice Applications Duty of Disclosure +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Commissioner of Inland Revenue

Judgment Creditor

John Lindsay Hanning

Judgment Debtor

Official Assignee

Assignee

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Adjudication and Annulment / Annulment Hearing (post Adjudication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order for substituted service was properly obtained
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioner took reasonable steps to effect personal service
  3. 3 Whether material information was withheld on a without-notice application

Ratio Decidendi

The substituted service order was improperly obtained because the Commissioner failed to disclose material information (ownership of an Auckland property and available contact details) and did not demonstrate reasonable follow-up steps after a significant delay; as a result the adjudication should not have been made and, exercising discretion under s 309(1)(a), the Court annulled the adjudication subject to conditions.

Court Disposition

Order annulling the adjudication of bankruptcy made 4 September 2013 under s 309(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2006; exercise of discretion in favour of annulment subject to conditions.

Orders

  • Order annulling the adjudication dated 4 September 2013 under s 309(1)(a) Insolvency Act 2006.
  • Annulment is conditional on payment of the Official Assignee's costs of $10,208.69 within five working days; order not to be sealed until proof of payment is provided to the Court.