New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public examination

Legal area

Court

2 Mar 2023

RE STRANG [2023] NZHC 369

Citation

[2023] NZHC 369
Court

High Court

The assignee's comprehensive report and the bankrupt's non‑appearance satisfied the Court that the examination was complete; given the bankrupt's failure to comply with obligations, prior misconduct, outstanding tax debt and risk to the public, continuation of the bankruptcy for a further three years and imposition of all s299 conditions was necessary to protect the sole creditor and the public and to enable further recovery.
22 Nov 2022

ZHANG v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE & Anor [2022] NZHC 3052

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3052
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for early discharge because she deliberately delayed filing her statement of affairs despite being aware of the obligation, impeded administration, failed to advertise the application thereby prejudicing creditor participation, and there remained public interest and conduct grounds to refuse immediate discharge; application dismissed and reapplication barred for one year.
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…
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.
7 Sept 2017

OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE in the bankruptcy of CHAIRAT SANTIPONGCHAI (AKA HENRY HARRISON) v CHAIRAT SANTIPONGCHAI (AKA HENRY HARRISON) [2017] NZHC 2162

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2162
Court

High Court

The court concluded the Official Assignee had established sufficient public interest and risk to justify delaying automatic discharge: the respondent repeatedly failed to disclose assets and income, concealed bank accounts and a passport/name change, obtained credit and loans without disclosure, controlled a relative-owned company, travelled without consent, caused losses to creditors and members of the public, and faces criminal charges; these findings warranted extending the bankruptcy until 25 November 2019 to protect the public and creditors.
4 Dec 2015

HAVENLEIGH GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED v HENDERSON [2015] NZHC 3069

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3069
Court

High Court

The discovery application for wholesale production of s165 summonses, s171 notices, transcripts and communications was dismissed as an untargeted general discovery request; however the court granted a limited, pragmatic order that the Assignee file and serve by 11 December 2015 a paginated volume comprising five transcripts provided by Mr Henderson plus six additional transcripts and an addendum to the Assignee's submissions, and directed Mr Henderson to file by 21 December 2015 a memorandum attaching any further transcripts he seeks to admit with highlighted passages and succinct explanation…
18 Sept 2015

HAVENLEIGH GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED v HENDERSON [2015] NZHC 2262

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2262
Court

High Court

The Court ruled that the statutory scheme requires an accurate written record and that the Court may direct correction of typographical (and non-substantive grammatical) errors, but a bankrupt may not correct errors of fact in the record because permitting factual corrections would alter the substance of evidence already given, undermine the required spontaneity of answers (s177(4)), and is unnecessary because the bankrupt may add to or clarify evidence during the examination; accordingly corrections are limited to typographical/non-substantive edits directed by the Court.
10 Sept 2015

HAVENLEIGH GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED v HENDERSON [2016] NZHC 2186

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2186
Court

High Court

The Court has power under its inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to the objectives of the High Court Rules to require that, where a public examination is adjourned and will resume after a significant break, any further evidence to be adduced by the bankrupt must be provided in the form of a written brief in accordance with a court timetable to ensure efficient, fair preparation and exchange of submissions; s186 does not entitle an unrepresented bankrupt to avoid that requirement by insisting on oral delivery without a brief.
17 Aug 2015

HAVENLEIGH GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED v HENDERSON [2015] NZHC 1947

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1947
Court

High Court

The examinee (Mr Henderson) must give evidence from his own knowledge and recollection; he may recount contemporaneous statements made to him, but may not use an adjournment to import the knowledge or recollection of others into his own testimony without those persons giving evidence themselves; if he does rely on information obtained from others during any adjournment he must identify the source and timing to allow the Court to rule on admissibility and weight. Unsworn statements remain permissible but attract limited weight per Ruling No 5.
13 Aug 2015

HAVENLEIGH GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED v HENDERSON [2015] NZHC 1930

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1930
Court

High Court

The Court ruled that evidence concerning dealings between Mr Henderson and his Case Officer is limited to the specific allegations in the Official Assignee's report—namely nondisclosure of income/assets and breaches of bankruptcy prohibitions as particularised at paragraphs 59–93—and directed Mr Henderson to confine his evidence about Mr Marshall to those matters; general cooperation is not in issue and is irrelevant for the purposes of this examination.