New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discharge from bankruptcy

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2023

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v LASCELLES [2023] NZHC 3438

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3438
Court

High Court

The Court granted access because the strong presumption of open justice outweighed the respondent's asserted privacy and prejudice interests: the respondent remains an undischarged bankrupt, his unexplained delay in seeking discharge and the court record contradict his claim of an inadvertent non-appearance, and no sufficient health or family circumstances were shown to outweigh public interest; accordingly the journalist was permitted physical access to specified documents at the Christchurch Registry and no publication condition requiring a corrective statement was imposed.
5 May 2023

RE SCOTT ex parte BANK OF NEW ZEALAND [2023] NZHC 1058

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1058
Court

High Court

Dismissal of the discharge application was warranted because the applicant failed to prove filing of a compliant statement of affairs, failed to cooperate with the Official Assignee or attend examination, had been absent overseas throughout the bankruptcy, and there was evidence (or credible inference) of undisclosed funds and incomplete disclosure about trusts; the public interest in maintaining integrity of the bankruptcy regime and holding bankrupts accountable outweighed the lack of practical benefit to creditors from continuing administration, so early discharge was refused.
29 Apr 2022

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LTD v CLARKE [2022] NZHC 892

Citation

[2022] NZHC 892
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion under s 294 to grant immediate discharge because the bankrupt had been adjudicated over eight years prior, the Official Assignee accepted the statement of affairs from 20 August 2021 and did not oppose discharge, the administration was effectively complete, the bankrupt had already been punished for his offending, no ongoing misconduct or risk warranting extension was identified, procedural defects in service/advertising did not prejudice creditors and examination under s 177 was dispensed with; discharge was granted subject to the condition that the bankrup…
15 Mar 2022

WALIA v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2022] NZHC 485

Citation

[2022] NZHC 485
Court

High Court

Applying the broad discretionary test (ASB Bank v Hogg) and having regard to the assignee's report which recorded no objection and cooperation since filing the statement of affairs, the Court found the applicant established good cause and that immediate discharge would not prejudice creditors or public interest; therefore discharge granted immediately under s 298(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2006.
21 May 2021

BURCHELL v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2021] NZHC 1136

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1136
Court

High Court

The applicant was not automatically discharged under s290 because his May 2017 statement of affairs did not substantially comply with the prescribed requirements; however, having regard to the Official Assignee's report, lack of prejudice to creditors, the single creditor's participation and the long passage of time, the court exercised its discretion under s294 to order the applicant's discharge from bankruptcy effective 18 May 2021.
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…
2 Mar 2020

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v McCREATH [2020] NZHC 343

Citation

[2020] NZHC 343
Court

High Court

Discharge was refused under s 298(1)(e) because the respondent, a serial bankrupt with a longstanding history of dishonesty and recent convictions for trading while bankrupt, used aliases and false documents to attempt to set up business activity, demonstrated disregard for bankruptcy obligations and posed an ongoing risk to creditors and the public; the Court specified 25 July 2023 as the earliest date the bankrupt may apply for discharge (coinciding with expiry of the management prohibition).
26 Jul 2019

RE HAMPTON [2019] NZHC 1774

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1774
Court

High Court

r 17.29 was inapplicable because the challenged judgments concerned status rather than enforceable debts; the correct procedural path was r 12 Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules but, having regard to the circumstances and undertakings, the Court granted conditional interim stays to protect appeal rights: Mr Hampton's discharge was stayed pending his appeal (subject to diligent prosecution) and the liquidators were stayed from dealing with 854 Colombo Street pending Ms Sisson's appeal (subject to diligent prosecution), with leave reserved to review on 48 hours' notice if appeals are not diligently…
6 Dec 2018

REYNOLDS v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2018] NZHC 3210

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3210
Court

High Court

The Court applied its broad discretion under s 294/298, having considered the Assignee's report under s 296, the applicant's cooperation after filing the statement of affairs, lack of creditor opposition, minimal assets for creditors, and the applicant's prolonged bankruptcy (over seven years); these factors constituted good cause to grant immediate discharge under s 298(1)(a).