New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conditions on discharge

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2020

DAVID JOHN HAMPTON v MINTERELLISONRUDDWATTS [2020] NZSC 123

Citation

[2020] NZSC 123
Court

Supreme Court

R 17.29 does not provide jurisdiction to stay a bankruptcy adjudication because bankruptcy is a status rather than an enforceable judgment and the Insolvency Act's annulment procedure is the appropriate statutory remedy; conditions on discharge were justified by the bankrupt's failure to distinguish entity affairs and lack of cooperation; no issue of public importance or real risk of miscarriage was established to warrant leave to appeal.
15 Jul 2020

HAMPTON v MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS [2020] NZCA 291

Citation

[2020] NZCA 291
Court

Court of Appeal

Rule 17.29 does not permit the court to effect a temporary annulment or suspension of an adjudication that would revest estate assets in the bankrupt; adjudication is a status under the Insolvency Act and annulment is governed by s 309. Osborne J correctly found no jurisdiction under r 17.29 to grant the primary relief sought. Venning J did not err in imposing conditions on discharge because the appellant's failure to distinguish assets of related entities (notably the Augusta Street matter) and his lack of cooperation with the Official Assignee (late statement of affairs, failure to disclose…
7 Nov 2013

DONOVAN v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZHC 2936

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2936
Court

High Court

Bankrupt carried on unauthorised business during bankruptcy and displayed indifference to statutory obligations, but the public interest and personal circumstances justify conditional discharge rather than continued undischarged status; court will impose an 18‑month condition requiring Official Assignee approval for any employment or business participation and prohibit entering into business on own account, discharge effective 31 December 2013.
25 Jul 2013

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v DEOBHAKTA [2013] NZHC 1834

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1834
Court

High Court

Although the bankrupt's conduct evidenced non‑cooperation, credibility issues and failure to disclose income, the Court was not persuaded that attaching the proposed condition (prohibition on self‑employment for 18 months) would produce any material advantage or mitigate a proven risk to creditors; accordingly immediate unconditional discharge was granted under s298 because the balance of statutory objectives favored release.

New Zealand Case Law

DAVID JOHN HAMPTON v MINTERELLISONRUDDWATTS [2020] NZSC 123

HAMPTON v MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS [2020] NZCA 291

DONOVAN v THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZHC 2936

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v DEOBHAKTA [2013] NZHC 1834