Hampton v Minter Ellison Rudd Watts

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA485/2018
CA360/2019
 [2020] NZCA 291

BETWEEN	DAVID JOHN HAMPTON Appellant
AND	MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS First Respondent OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE Second Respondent COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE Third Respondent

Hearing:	25 February 2020
Court:	Clifford, Simon France and Lang JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in Person P H Courtney and G E Slevin for Second Respondent S M Kinsler for Third Respondent
Judgment:	15 July 2020 at 12.30 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeals are dismissed.

BThere is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Clifford J)

1. The appellant, David Hampton, along with his former wife and their associated companies, partnerships and trusts, has since at least the last decade of last century been involved in protracted disputes with the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.  In 2008, together with several of those entities, he commenced a proceeding against the Commissioner, the Attorney-General, a solicitor and 20 departmental officers claiming damages for alleged misfeasance in public office (the Misfeasance Claim).  That proceeding remains extant, albeit that it was stayed by this Court on 18 March 2013 pending the filing of a statement of claim settled by a lawyer with a current practising certificate who had reviewed the available evidence.[1]

   [1]Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Chesterfields Preschools Ltd [2013] NZCA 53, [2013] 2 NZLR 679 at [116] and [119].

2. Three months later on 5 June 2013 Mr Hampton was adjudicated bankrupt.[2]  The petitioning creditor was the law firm Minter Ellison Rudd Watts (MERW).  The judgment debt on which the original bankruptcy notice was based was for legal services provided to Mr Hampton in the course of his disputes with the Commissioner. 

   [2]Minter Ellison Rudd Watts v Hampton HC Christchurch CIV-2011-409-2055, 5 June 2013.

3. Mr Hampton filed a statement of affairs one year after his adjudication on 19 June 2014.  Pursuant to s 290 of the Insolvency Act 2006, he therefore fell to be discharged three years later on 19 June 2017.  Prior to that date, the Official Assignee lodged an objection to Mr Hampton’s discharge.  A public examination was therefore required.[3]

   [3]Insolvency Act 2006, s 295(1).

4. Several applications were subsequently filed.  As relevant to this appeal:

   (a)The Commissioner applied for leave to object to Mr Hampton’s discharge, and sought the imposition of conditions on that discharge in the public interest;[4] and

   (b)Mr Hampton applied to be discharged unconditionally.

   [4]Namely, that Mr Hampton be prohibited from being a director of any company, or taking part in the management and control of any business, without the Court’s consent.

5. Those applications and the associated examination of Mr Hampton were heard by Venning J in the High Court at Christchurch.[5]  The Judge recorded that, at the hearing, Mr Hampton sought an unconditional discharge while both the Official Assignee and the Commissioner sought conditions restricting Mr Hampton’s ability to control or manage the operation of a company.[6]  In a judgment dated 26 July 2018, Venning J decided that Mr…