Greig v Soljans Wines Limited

[2013] NZHC 25

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV2012-404-004363 [2013] NZHC 25

IN THE MATTER OF     the bankruptcy of Geoff Greig

BETWEEN  GEOFFREY JOHN GREIG Judgment Debtor

ANDSOLJANS WINES LIMITED Judgment Creditor

Counsel:         R S Pidgeon for the Judgment Debtor

C Hall for the Judgment Creditor

Judgment:      29 January 2013

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE CHRISTIANSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on

29.01.12 at 4:30pm, pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:

C Hall, Carlile Dowling, Napier – [email protected]

R Pidgeon, Pidgeon Law, Auckland – [email protected]

GEOFFREY JOHN GREIG V SOLJANS WINES LIMITED HC AK CIV 2012-404-004363 [29 January 2013]

[1]      This proceeding was called in the bankruptcy list before me on 27 November

2012.  It was one of two applications for bankruptcy brought by Soljans Wines Ltd in connection with a judgment obtained in the District Court at Waitakere on 11 May

2012 in the sum of $13,183.54.

[2]      The  second  application  for  bankruptcy  was  brought  against  Kathleen

Dryfhout. This application was also called before me on 27 November 2012.

[3]      It appears that the debt due to Soljans Wines Ltd related to venue services provided following the occasion of Mr Greig’s and Ms Dryfhout’s wedding.

[4]      On the day these matters were first called before me on 27 November 2012 it appears Mr Greig and Ms Dryfhout separately filed notices opposing the bankruptcy applications. The Court’s file indicates that neither judgment debtor appeared.

[5]      In the outcome I adjudicated Mr Greig bankrupt and noted on the court file there appeared nothing in the information provided indicating the “existence of just and equitable grounds” to refuse the application.

[6]      Clearly I reached a different view in relation to the affidavit evidence filed by Ms Dryfhout for in that case I timetabled the bankruptcy application for a defended hearing on 18 March 2013.

[7]      On 30 November 2012 the Court received a memorandum from Mr R S Pidgeon advising of his appointment as lawyer on behalf of Mr Greig.

[8]      On 13 December 2012 this Court received a copy of a minute and directions of Wild J made in the Court of Appeal that day.  It noted that Mr Greig’s adjudication was  suspended  until  28  February  2013  on  the  condition  that  he  paid  the  full judgment debt together with costs and disbursements awarded in the adjudication hearing, failing which the order for suspension would cease and the order for adjudication would take effect from 9:00am on 1 March 2013.

[9]      On 10 January 2013 Mr Pidgeon emailed the High Court requesting:

...access to the related full court file of Kathy Dryfhout under High Court

Rule2 2008 r 3.9... on the basis:

-       The debt relates to the same factual matrix, the creditor is the same.

-       The judgment creditor has consented to the Court of Appeal orders.

-Mr Greig has advised counsel today that he expects to be in a position to pay in full the debt to the creditor Soljans Wines Limited by the end of January.

-The  debt  to  be  repaid  (a  joint  and  several  one)  is  a  relationship property  debt  and  Mr  Greig  is  entitled  to  ascertain  his  rights  to possibly seek a contribution from her.

-       To enable him to obtain evidence to assist him to proceed under s

209(1)(a) Insolvency Act 2006 rather than s 309(1)(b)...

[10]     Mr  Pidgeon  advises  that  in  the  event  the  Court  does  not  consider  it appropriate to make the disclosure requested pursuant to Rule 3.9, that Mr Greig would proceed under Rule 3.13.

[11]     In response to the Court’s enquiry Ms Dryfhout has made it clear that she opposes access to her Court file being given to Mr Greig.  She repeats reasons she gave in her affidavit in opposition to the bankruptcy application brought against her.

[12]     Ms Dryfhout’s own account of the events surrounding the parties wedding celebration contains what could be considered highly sensitive personal information. It contains claims of concerns for her welfare and safety.

[13]     Of course the Court is not in a position to draw any conclusions regarding these claims.  Also the Court is conscious that Rules 3.9 and 3.13 are intended to provide appropriate access to relevant Court files unless that access should clearly be denied.

Judgment

[14]     In this case it is the Court’s decision to deny Mr Greig’s request – at least in the interim.  My brief reasons are:

(a)      Mr Greig did not provide details of just or equitable grounds for opposing the bankruptcy application heard on 27 November 2012, nor have any apparently since been given.

(b)Mr Greig has promised to pay the debt and the order for adjudication has been suspended on the basis of that promise.

(c)      In due course Mr Greig may apply to recover a portion of the Soljans Wines Ltd debt from Ms Dryfhout.  That is a matter for consideration in due course and should have no influence on Mr Greig’s discharge of his undertaking given to the Court of Appeal on 13 December

2012.

[15]     In the circumstances it is appropriate for Mr Greig to renew his application under Rule 3.13 after that date his adjudication is rescinded or annulled.

Associate Judge Christiansen