Broughton v Bank of New Zealand

[2012] NZHC 1542

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2012-485-611 [2012] NZHC 1542

IN THE MATTER OF     the Insolvency Act 2006

AND

IN THE MATTER OF      the bankruptcy of ANGELIQUE LAURETTE BROUGHTON Judgment Debtor

BETWEEN  BANK OF NEW ZEALAND Judgment Creditor

Hearing:         2 July 2012

(Heard at Wellington)

Counsel:         J. Grant - Counsel for Judgment Creditor

G. Dewar - Counsel for Judgment Debtor

Decision:        2 July 2012

ORAL DECISION OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE D.I. GENDALL

Solicitors:           JT Law, Solicitors, PO Box 25443, Wellington 6146

BANK OF NEW ZEALAND v AL BROUGHTON HC WN CIV-2012-485-611 [2 July 2012]

[1]      Before  the  Court  is  an  application  seeking  an  order  to  adjudicate  the judgment debtor bankrupt.

[2]      The debt in question is the sum of $400,635.15 (together with interest).  This relates to a judgment obtained by the judgment creditor against the judgment debtor in the High Court at Wellington, a little over three months ago on 19 March 2012.

[3]      As I understand the position the debt relates to a shortfall in a loan guarantee after the realisation of all assets held by the debtor and her husband.

[4]      Today, Mr Dewar who appeared as counsel for the judgment debtor indicated he has only recently received instructions to act on her behalf and simply seeks a short adjournment of this matter for a fortnight to be able to provide complete and proper advice to her.

[5]      In this regard, Mr Dewar indicated that certain medical grounds existed in support of such an adjournment application and in particular he wished to explore all possibilities with the judgment debtor.

[6]      An underlying thought in all these matters, as I understand it from Mr Dewar, was the need to outline to the judgment debtor in detail what options she may have and in particular to provide for her some preparation for what may be an inevitable outcome in this matter.

[7]      In response, Mr Grant, who appeared for the judgment creditor, opposed any adjournment being granted today and indicated his instructions were to seek an order for adjudication now.

[8]      On this, Mr Dewar did acknowledge that the adjournment sought was indeed an indulgence of this Court, but under the circumstances prevailing for the judgment debtor whose debt as I understand the position has principally been brought about by actions taken on the part of her husband, the short adjournment was sought.

[9]      Under all these circumstances, and in the broad interests of justice, I am of the view that the short adjournment sought by Mr Dewar on behalf of the judgment

debtor is not unreasonable and will not prejudice the judgment creditor to any extent. As  I  understand  the  position,  the  judgment  debtor  is  not  trading  or  incurring additional debt at this point.

[10]     That  said  and  over the  objection  of the judgment  creditor this  matter is adjourned to a new call in the List at 10.00 am on 16 July 2012.  I emphasise that the matter will be disposed of and a final decision made at that time.

‘Associate Judge D.I. Gendall’