Harrison v Harrison - [2015] NZHC 1054

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2014-409-000496 [2015] NZHC 1054

IN THE MATTER OF the Insolvency Act 2006

AND

IN THE MATTER OF

of the bankruptcy of PAULINE JANICE HARRISON

BETWEEN

GRAEME ROSS HARRISON AND ADRIENNE HARRISON

Judgment Creditors

AND

PAULINE JANICE HARRISON Judgment Creditor now Bankrupt

Hearing:

(in Court)
12 May 2015

Appearances:

S J Shamy for Judgment Creditors

P J Harrison (Bankrupt) in person, with A J Harrison as McKenzie Friend

(G Slevin for Official Assignee, excused)

Judgment:

12 May 2015

(ORAL) JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE
on suspension of bankruptcy and advertising

HARRISON v HARRISON [2015] NZHC 1054 [12 May 2015]

Introduction

[1] Pauline Harrison, on 24 February 2015, was adjudicated bankrupt on the application of Graeme and Adrienne Harrison (the creditors).

[2] Ms Harrison now applies for orders suspending her adjudication and preventing the advertisement of the adjudication pending an appeal.

The judgment debt

[3] Ms Harrison is a judgment debtor by reason of a judgment which the creditors obtained in the High Court on 1 March 2013.1 Ms Harrison, in that proceeding (the Auckland Proceeding), is suing the creditors (as trustees of the Valerie Geard Family Trust) for breaches of trust. She asserts that the creditors have disregarded her “fixed final beneficiary interest”. She asserts that she was removed from an entitled position as beneficiary. In granting the creditors security for costs,
the Court ordered Ms Harrison to pay into Court the sum of $25,000 (the security sum) as security for costs. The Court, at the same time, dismissed an application by Ms Harrison for an order removing the creditors’ solicitor.

[4] Toogood J made two costs orders:

(a) first, Ms Harrison was ordered to pay the creditors’ costs on the

application for disqualification in the sum of $3,854; and

(b)secondly, Ms Harrison was ordered to pay the costs and disbursements of the security for costs application which were fixed at $2,500, with that sum to be paid out of the security sum.

[5] Ms Harrison did not satisfy the costs and disbursements orders. She did make a payment of a sum into the Auckland High Court by way of security but deducted from it the costs awarded on the security application.

[6] It was apparent then and has been repeatedly confirmed in documents since filed by Ms Harrison that she has no intention of paying any costs and disbursements awarded to the creditors. She takes the view that the creditors are not entitled to those payments because they have engaged in “deceitful and fraudulent conduct”. She also considers that the Court, in making the orders in favour of the creditors, has permitted its processes and the law to be used to permit the creditors’ frauds to continue. She stated in her written submissions:

I will not reward fraud in any shape or form including laundering under the pretext of costs.

[7] She repeated today in oral submissions:

I do not pay for a fraud.

[8] As a result of Ms Harrison’s…

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 [2015] NZHC 1054
Case: [2015] NZHC 1054
Decision Date: 12 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pauline Janice Harrison was adjudicated bankrupt by the High Court of New Zealand on 24 February 2015, following an application by Graeme and Adrienne Harrison. Ms Harrison applied to suspend the adjudication and prevent the advertisement of the adjudication pending an appeal. The legal issues before the court were whether the adjudication should be suspended and whether the advertisement of the adjudication should be prohibited. The court found that Ms Harrison had not satisfied the threshold requirement for suspension, as the right to appeal the adjudication judgment would not be rendered nugatory by a lack of suspension. Additionally, the court considered the factors governing suspension orders and found that the overall balance of convenience favoured the creditors. The court also found that it was inappropriate to order that the Assignee not advertise the adjudication. Consequently, the applications were dismissed, and Ms Harrison was ordered to pay costs on a 2B basis.

This case involved a dispute between the judgment creditors and the judgment debtor, who was subsequently adjudicated bankrupt. The primary legal issue was whether the adjudication should be suspended and the advertisement of the adjudication prohibited pending an appeal. The court found that the threshold requirement for suspension was not met, and the overall balance of convenience favoured the creditors. The court also found that it was not appropriate to order a restraint on advertising. Consequently, the applications were dismissed, and the bankrupt was ordered to pay costs on a 2B basis.

Orders