30 Jun 2021
Mr Watson, as a person who suffered loss from the Official Assignee's disclaimer, was entitled to apply under s119; given the absence of opposition, the protection of the mortgagee's interest, and Mr Watson's intention to repay borrowings from sale proceeds, it was fair to vest the property in him and the Court therefore granted the vesting order.
14 Dec 2017
Loss or damage under s119 must be assessed at the time of disclaimer; The Fish Man suffered no loss at that time because the property had no equity and beneficial ownership vested in the Crown on disclaimer; The Fish Man cannot establish a proprietary interest in the property by tracing, backward tracing or equitable lien because misappropriated company funds were not used to acquire the property and no sufficient transactional coordination existed; Mrs Hadfield, by contrast, suffered loss as a relationship partner and had paid mortgage installments preventing foreclosure and is entitled to h…
5 Nov 2015
The Court found that the applicant had suffered loss due to the Official Assignee's disclaimer and that, applying s 119 of the Insolvency Act 2006, it was fair to vest the Crown's former half share in the applicant; accordingly a vesting order was granted.
31 Oct 2014
The judicial review application was struck out because there was no decision by Judge Spear refusing disclosure to be reviewed, the statement of claim disclosed no tenable cause of action against the defendants, and the forensic examination and disclosure relief sought were not available by judicial review; disclosure, if appropriate, should be sought under the Criminal Disclosure Act in the criminal proceedings.
29 Oct 2014
An application for discharge filed before the earliest date specified in a prior refusal must be dismissed because s294(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006 is mandatory and the Court lacks discretion to override it.
7 May 2014
The Court declined to grant immediate discharge because documents and witness statements raised serious issues that the bankrupt had been closely involved in management of JEC and Kingsland after adjudication, potentially breaching s149; in the public interest and pursuant to its discretion under s298, discharge was refused at least until determination of the related criminal charges or until a specified later date.
27 Feb 2014
The costs order made by the Environment Court is not a provable debt under s232(1)(b) and therefore was not released by the applicant's prior discharge under s304; this Court in these proceedings has no jurisdiction to set aside the Environment Court's determinations absent appeal or review; the applicant has no viable counterclaim or set-off that equals or exceeds the debt (res judicata and lack of cause of action under the RMA); limitation does not bar enforcement; the originating application to set aside the bankruptcy notice is dismissed and costs are awarded against the applicant.
19 Jun 2012
The claim as pleaded could not be characterised as a provable debt at the time of Chapman’s adjudication or discharge because the cause of action for the alleged negligent building work had not accrued (was not reasonably discoverable) before discharge; accordingly the Tribunal did not err in refusing removal and judicial review is dismissed.
2 Jul 2009
Threshold for security was satisfied; the plaintiffs' (RDL/Ambition) position was sufficiently meritorious and RDL undertook to meet any costs making security unnecessary as to plaintiffs' claim; the third parties faced a factually complex, potentially costly claim and Ms Paul failed to disclose her financial position, so it was just to order security for costs by Ms Paul of NZD 30,000 payable within 14 days, failure to provide security or RDL's undertaking to stay the relevant claim; costs awarded on a 2B basis with specified adjustments.