Harrison v Harrison - [2016] NZHC 2854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2016-409-000400 [2016] NZHC 2854

IN THE MATTER of the Insolvency Act 2006

AND

IN THE MATTER

of the bankruptcy of ANGELA JANICE HARRISON

BETWEEN

GRAEME ROSS HARRISON AND ADRIENNE HARRISON

Judgment Creditors

AND

ANGELA JANICE HARRISON Judgment Debtor

Hearing: 24 November 2016

Appearances:

S J Shamy for Judgment Creditors
A J Harrison (Judgment Debtor) in person

Judgment:

29 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE (on adjudication application)

Introduction

[1] For some years, Angela Harrison (Ms Harrison) and her mother, Pauline Harrison, have been in dispute and litigation with Ms Harrison’s uncle and aunt (the judgment creditors in this proceeding). Their disputes relate to the administration of the Valerie Geard Trust (the Trust).

[2] There have been issues on which the position taken by Ms Harrison and her mother have been found to be correct. For instance, in Harrison v Harrison,1 Faire J
found (in favour of Ms Harrison and her mother) that a purported resettlement of the

1 Harrison v Harrison [2015] NZHC 2935.

HARRISON v HARRISON [2016] NZHC 2854 [29 November 2016]

Trust had been invalid, awarding to Ms Harrison and her mother their reasonable disbursements (they having represented themselves).

[3] On the other hand, in Valerie Geard Family Trust v Harrison2 Toogood J ruled in favour of the trustees on a number of interlocutory applications and awarded costs and disbursements against Ms Harrison and her mother.

[4] Ms Harrison and her mother had lodged a caveat against the title of a property owned by the Trust. In April 2016, some six months after Faire J had given judgment in favour of Ms Harrison and her mother on the Trust resettlement issue,3
Faire J heard and granted an application by the trustees for an order that the caveat be removed.4 At the same time, he awarded costs and disbursements in favour of the trustees. Although the trustees had two proceedings before the Court (being the originating application for removal of the caveat and an application for summary judgment), it is clear from the concluding paragraphs of the judgment that the order granted was pursuant to the originating application – the summary judgment application proceeding in respect of which it was filed being struck out.5

The debt on which this bankruptcy proceeding is based

[5] The trustees had a bankruptcy notice issued in reliance upon Faire J’s costs

and disbursements order (totalling $12,749.90).

[6] Ms Harrison did not make payment. She applied to set aside the bankruptcy notice.

[7] Associate Judge Matthews heard and dismissed the application in August

2016.6

[8] In describing generally Ms Harrison’s application, his Honour stated:

2      Valerie Geard Family Trust v Harrison [2013] NZHC 385.
3 Above at [2].
4      Harrison v Harrison [2016] NZHC 574.
5 At [28].
6      Harrison v Harrison [2016] NZHC 202.

[7] The application … sets out various criticisms of the judgment of Faire J. Ms Harrison concludes this portion of her application by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Harrison v Harrison

Details

AGLC: Harrison v Harrison [2016] NZHC 2854
Case: [2016] NZHC 2854
Decision Date: 29 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Harrison v Harrison, the court had to decide whether to grant an adjudication of bankruptcy against Angela Janice Harrison. The trustees of the Valerie Geard Trust sought the adjudication after Ms Harrison failed to pay a debt, which included the costs awarded against her in a previous proceeding. Ms Harrison had previously unsuccessfully sought to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued by the trustees. The key issues before the court were whether Ms Harrison had any substantial grounds of opposition to the adjudication application and whether it was appropriate to grant her leave to rely on documents that she had failed to file on time. The court found that Ms Harrison's grounds of opposition were not substantial and largely rehashed arguments she had unsuccessfully raised before. The court noted that Ms Harrison had not appealed or reviewed the previous decisions of the court, and her current arguments were a continuation of those rejected decisions. The court concluded that it was not appropriate to grant Ms Harrison leave to rely on her late-filed opposition documents. The court ultimately ordered that Ms Harrison be adjudicated bankrupt and directed that she pay the trustees' costs of the adjudication application.

Orders