Henderson v Official Assignee

David Ian Henderson appealed a decision of the Official Assignee to refuse his application for consent to leave New Zealand. The Assignee refused the application on the basis that Henderson's travel plans lacked corroborative evidence and appeared to be business related. Henderson argued that the Assignee should have granted him approval in principle. Henderson submitted that the Assignee should have been more flexible in his approach to the application and that the Assignee had not properly considered his interests as a bankrupt. The Official Assignee responded that the refusal of the application was justified and that Henderson had not provided the necessary corroborative evidence and had not applied for consent to enter into business. Henderson appealed to the High Court under section 226 of the Insolvency Act 2006. The Court found that Henderson's application was not handled appropriately in 2014. However, the Court found that the refusal of the application in January 2015 was justified. The Assignee had reasonably required corroborative evidence and had reasonably concluded that Henderson's travel was business related. The Court found that the Assignee had not properly considered Henderson's interests, but this was not determinative of the appeal. The Court dismissed Henderson's application and reserved costs.