25 Feb 2020
The court exercised its discretion under s37(c) of the Insolvency Act 2006 to refuse adjudication because the debtor's advanced age and frailty, the prior gratuitous transfers, the low likelihood that an investigation would meaningfully recover assets before the debtor's death, and the undue distress and disproportionate consequences of adjudication rendered it not just and equitable to adjudicate.
13 Apr 2016
The court found the jurisdictional facts under s13 satisfied and that Mr Benton did not demonstrate sufficient just and equitable grounds under s37 to refuse adjudication; the asserted third party claim was speculative, delayed and unlikely to be resolved within the requested adjournment, the debtor lacked means to satisfy the judgment, and the public interest in allowing the Official Assignee to investigate supported making the adjudication order.
25 Feb 2016
The trustees proved the s13 jurisdictional facts (certain debt >$1,000, act of bankruptcy by non-compliance with the bankruptcy notice, debt payable immediately). The Court found public interest factors and potential asset-transfer issues favoured adjudication but, given the debtor's serious health issues and plausible short-term prospects of employment using recent qualifications, the Court exercised its discretion under s37 to adjourn the adjudication application for three months rather than making an immediate adjudication order, while noting the prima facie entitlement of the trustees and…
21 Feb 2013
The court held that the jurisdictional requirements of s13 were satisfied because the New Zealand registered judgment fixed a certain debt ($121,964.11) and the debtor failed to comply with a bankruptcy notice; the asserted unlitigated counterclaim (~$20,000) was insufficient to render the debt uncertain or to outweigh public interest considerations; on balance of factors under s37 (debtor's inability to pay, insufficient demonstrable assets, risk to unsecured creditors and the public interest) the discretion to refuse adjudication was not exercised and the debtor was adjudicated bankrupt.
10 May 2010
The originating document was a nullity because it lacked any prayer for relief and therefore could not be cured by s 418; furthermore, s 22 requires actual notification by the debtor to the creditor of suspension or intended suspension of payments and a pre‑signed notice held by the creditor does not satisfy that requirement, so the creditor failed to prove an act of bankruptcy; accordingly the creditor was permitted to withdraw and the debtor awarded costs.