Harrison v Roberts - [2025] NZHC 1327

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-935 [2025] NZHC 1327

UNDER the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006

IN THE MATTER of request for the High Court’s assistance in
aid of the Federal Court of Australia, in bankruptcy under s 8

BETWEENBRETT RICHARD GEOFFREY HARRISON
Plaintiff

AND MEI LAN ROBERTS
Defendant

Hearing: 30 April 2025 Appearances: J R F Cochrane for Plaintiff
Defendant in Person

Judgment: 26 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF WILKINSON-SMITH J

[Reasons]

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 May 2025 at 3 pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Lane Neave, Auckland Copy to Defendant.

HARRISON v ROBERTS [2025] NZHC 1327 [26 May 2025]

Introduction

[1] The applicant, Brett Harrison, was appointed by certificate issued by the Australian Financial Security Authority as trustee of the bankrupt estate of the respondent, Mei Lan Roberts, on 23 May 2024.

[2] Mr Harrison seeks the assistance of the New Zealand High Court to obtain possession and control of the assets of Ms Roberts in New Zealand, pursuant to a letter of request issued by the Federal Court of Australia.

[3] By way of a statement of claim dated 17 April 2025 commencing the substantive proceedings, Mr Harrison seeks:

(a)an order recognising in New Zealand Mr Harrison’s appointment in Australia as the trustee of the bankrupt estate of Ms Roberts;

(b)an order permitting Mr Harrison (or by counsel) to examine Ms Roberts and her ex-husband as to Ms Roberts’ financial and asset position before the Court;

(c)an order that ahead of any examinations in (b) above, the examinees provide disclosure of all documents pertaining to Ms Roberts’ financial and asset position within 20 working days of the making of such order;

(d)an order vesting in Mr Harrison the real and personal property of Ms Roberts in New Zealand, and the possession and control thereof, with liberty to sell and lease the same and receive the proceeds of such sale or leasing and with authority to take such steps and do such acts and things as may be necessary for those purposes;

(e)such orders as may be necessary and proper for the purpose of implementing the order above;

(f)such other powers in respect of Ms Roberts as the Official Assignee has under the Insolvency Act 2006;

(g)any other relief the Court deems appropriate; and

(h)costs, which are to be an expense in the bankruptcy of Ms Roberts.

[4] Pending the outcome of the substantive application, Mr Harrison seeks interim relief, including pursuant to the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006 (ICBA), to prevent the dissipation of the New Zealand assets.

[5] Ms Roberts does not consent to the granting of interim relief, but is prepared to give an undertaking that she will not dispose of a property she owns in New Zealand, described in Certificate of Title NA3A/178 and situated at 170 Bleakhouse Road, Mellons Bay, Auckland (Property). She is also willing to agree to a…

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 Roberts

Details

AGLC: Harrison v Roberts [2025] NZHC 1327
Case: [2025] NZHC 1327
Decision Date: 26 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Brett Harrison, the trustee of Mei Lan Roberts' bankrupt estate, sought the assistance of the court to manage Roberts' assets in New Zealand. Roberts, who had become bankrupt in Australia, was the sole owner of a property in New Zealand, which was subject to consent orders for its sale. Harrison sought to prevent the dissipation of Roberts' New Zealand assets, pending the outcome of the substantive proceedings. The court considered the application under the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006 (ICBA) and its inherent jurisdiction. The court found that the ICBA's Schedule 1 was not engaged due to procedural reasons, but the residual discretion in section 8 of the ICBA was available. The court concluded that it could grant the relief sought, to prevent the dissipation of Roberts' New Zealand assets, by suspending the right to transfer, encumber, or otherwise dispose of the property. The court made orders suspending the right to transfer, encumber, or otherwise dispose of the property, and reserved leave for both parties to apply for further urgent orders as required. The court also set a deadline for Roberts to file a statement of defence and scheduled the matter to be called in the Duty Judge List.

Orders