New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Objection to discharge

Legal area

Court

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 2018

WATTS v HAMPTON (A BANKRUPT) [2018] NZHC 1866

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1866
Court

High Court

Although discharge was appropriate after five years, the Court imposed a four year period of supervised conditions (prohibiting management, directorship and certain employments without Court leave) because the bankrupt's history of tax non‑compliance, failure to cooperate, problematic conduct over trust and property proceeds, and repeated litigation created a real risk to the commercial community and justified restrictions to protect public interest and commercial morality.
29 Jun 2015

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v MATTHEW JOSEPH EGGERS [2015] NZHC 1475

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1475
Court

High Court

The Court refused discharge and extended the bankruptcy because the debtor failed to account for significant funds, was not candid in examination, and obstructed completion of the Official Assignee's investigation; public interest requires extension until proper disclosure or expiry of the imposed bar period.
20 Oct 2014

TEDDI ALISON ROSS v BRYAN KEITH ROSS [2014] NZHC 2582

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2582
Court

High Court

Permission to file an objection under s 292 was refused because the creditor failed to pursue the statutory remedies under ss 226 or 147 in time, the Official Assignee had investigated and reasonably concluded no recoverable assets existed, the objection was an impermissible backdoor attack on the assignee's earlier decision, and a public examination was unlikely to disclose assets but would impose costs reducing creditor dividends.
22 Sept 2011

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE V SPENCER HC AK CIV-2007-404-848

Citation

openlaw-1eccaedc_f09b_40f9_b7e7_a4a62fd43777.pdf
Court

High Court

Given this is the bankrupt's second bankruptcy, the large creditor exposure, the bankrupt's repeated non‑disclosure, evasive evidence, non‑cooperation (including failure to produce records promptly, unauthorised travel and failure to notify address changes) which caused delay and cost and given a realistic prospect of further recoveries if bankruptcy continued, the Court declined to order discharge and specified the earliest date to reapply as 1 July 2013.
13 Mar 2006

WENZEL V OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE HC AK CIV-2005-404-006852

Citation

openlaw-16ae3eb8_d357_4d08_b2ff_451ede049b71.pdf
Court

High Court

The statement of claim was prolix, unintelligible, disclosed no reasonable cause of action and amounted to an abuse of process; the Official Assignee's objection under s107(3) and requirement to call a public examination under s109(2) were not subject to judicial review in the manner advanced by the plaintiff. The strike out application was therefore granted and costs awarded to the Official Assignee.

New Zealand Case Law

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v McCREATH [2020] NZHC 343

WATTS v HAMPTON (A BANKRUPT) [2018] NZHC 1866

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v MATTHEW JOSEPH EGGERS [2015] NZHC 1475

TEDDI ALISON ROSS v BRYAN KEITH ROSS [2014] NZHC 2582

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE V SPENCER HC AK CIV-2007-404-848

WENZEL V OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE HC AK CIV-2005-404-006852