29 May 2023
Z XING v F YU [2023] NZHC 1291
- Citation
- [2023] NZHC 1291
- Court
- High Court
The court granted the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice, applying and adopting the reasons expressed in Xing v Wang [2023] NZHC 1273.
New Zealand Case Law
Set aside bankruptcy notice
29 May 2023
XING v LIN [2023] NZHC 1300
- Citation
- [2023] NZHC 1300
- Court
- High Court
The court granted the judgment debtor's application to set aside the bankruptcy notice because the reasons given in Xing v Wang [2023] NZHC 1273 apply to this matter; costs are to be dealt with as set out in that judgment.
29 May 2023
XING v JIYUAN WU [2023] NZHC 1311
- Citation
- [2023] NZHC 1311
- Court
- High Court
The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice is granted because the grounds and reasoning set out in Xing v Wang [2023] NZHC 1273 apply to this application, warranting setting aside the notice.
21 Mar 2023
JONES v NEW ZEALAND BLOODSTOCK FINANCE & LEASING LIMITED [2023] NZHC 572 [21 March 2023]
- Citation
- [2023] NZHC 572
- Court
- High Court
The Court refused the orders because the High Court Rules do not grant jurisdiction to compel witnesses to give viva voce evidence at an interlocutory hearing in the manner sought: r 7.27 does not permit forcing attendance; r 9.75 requires an established refusal to swear an affidavit before ordering examination; and r 9.52 subpoenas apply to trials after statement of claim. The applicant also failed to provide necessary affidavits, particulars or timely compliance with directions, so the evidentiary and expert appointment orders were declined.
30 Nov 2021
MAO v KIM and LEE [2021] NZHC 3253
- Citation
- [2021] NZHC 3253
- Court
- High Court
Application dismissed because applicant failed to establish a genuine triable cross-claim that could not have been raised in the original proceedings; the bankruptcy notice remained effective despite the overstatement and non-compliance, so the court had no jurisdiction to set it aside on the grounds advanced.
21 Apr 2021
ANDERSON v JONES [2021] NZHC 843
- Citation
- [2021] NZHC 843
- Court
- High Court
The applicant failed to provide cogent evidence of incapacity at the relevant times; medical records did not establish inability to understand or respond and the applicant had negotiated with liquidators, demonstrating understanding; therefore the bankruptcy notice could not be set aside as an abuse of process and the application was dismissed.
8 Nov 2018
BANK OF NEW ZEALAND v LEE [2018] NZHC 2901
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 2901
- Court
- High Court
Because the Court of Appeal in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Wilson established the Court lacks jurisdiction to approve a compromise in an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice where the creditor has not accepted the proposal, and because the debtor did not plead any s17 cross-claim or other grounds (abuse of process or inherent jurisdiction) and his proposal was unsupported and uncertain, the application had no prospect of success and was dismissed with costs to the creditor.
10 Jul 2018
MYRIAD INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v L HERZOG [2018] NZHC 1690
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 1690
- Court
- High Court
The Court held the debtor has genuine, triable cross claims which are of sufficient substance and could not lawfully have been finally determined as defences in the interlocutory statutory demand proceedings; accordingly the bankruptcy notice must be set aside.
29 Mar 2018
HONEY & Ors v NOTTINGHAM [2018] NZHC 575
- Citation
- [2018] NZHC 575
- Court
- High Court
Leave to appeal was declined because established authority shows the 10 working day statutory time limit for applying to set aside a bankruptcy notice cannot be extended to undo an act of bankruptcy, Parliament did not clearly intend otherwise in the 2016 Act, the applicant failed to serve within time and had alternatives to avoid delay, and he raised no seriously arguable point of law or injustice warranting leave or further delay.
23 Jun 2016
HOWCROFT v SKELTON [2016] NZHC 1389
- Citation
- [2016] NZHC 1389
- Court
- High Court
The sealed costs order created a debt that is due and unpaid; the judgment debtor committed an act of bankruptcy; the asserted Trust claims are speculative, not personal to the debtor, and would not prevent adjudication; nothing raised justified exercising the s36 discretion to refuse adjudication or ordering a stay under s38; accordingly an order adjudicating the debtor bankrupt was made.