Jefferies v Pagan - [2025] NZHC 1738

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WAIHARAKEKE ROHE

CIV-2023-406-006

[2025] NZHC 1738

UNDER the Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE MATTER

of the bankruptcy of Walter Richard Pagan

BETWEEN

CLAIRE BRIDGET JEFFERIES

Judgment Creditor

AND

WALTER RICHARD PAGAN

Judgment Debtor

Hearing: 18 June 2025

Appearances:

S E England for Judgment Creditor

D G Dewar and T A Moore for Judgment Debtor

Judgment:

27 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 June 2025 at 4.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

JEFFERIES v PAGAN [2025] NZHC 1738 [27 June 2025]

[1] The judgment creditor, Ms Jefferies, has filed a creditor’s application to adjudicate the judgment debtor, Mr Pagan, bankrupt in reliance upon a judgment she obtained in the District Court. The creditor’s application has been before the Court for a long time. Mr Pagan has not opposed the creditor’s application and it has been adjourned several times, including because of the possibility that Mr Pagan would pay the judgment debt from the proceeds of sale of his home.

[2] Mr Pagan has now applied under s 38 of the Insolvency Act 2006 to halt the creditor’s application. This is on the basis that the District Court has made an order under s 153 of the District Court Act 2016 (the Act) for payment of the judgment debt by instalments (the instalment payment order) which, he contends, amounts to an implied stay of the judgment.

[3] While Mr Pagan’s application seeks a halt of the creditor’s application for only three months with the intention to use the time to continue payments as well as to “explore settlement proposals in full”, his counsel advises that the halt sought is not limited as to time and Mr Pagan has no proposals for settlement.

[4] The issue is whether the Court should exercise its discretion to halt the creditor’s application on the basis the making of the order under s 153 of the Act operates as an implied stay of enforcement of the judgment.

The facts

[5] Ms Jefferies is 66 years old and works as a teacher. The money owed to her by Mr Pagan is her only substantial asset. She lives in rental accommodation.

[6] Mr Pagan is 69 years old. He suffers from a spinal condition and is waiting for surgery. He is in receipt of benefits, but is without other sources of income. He does own a home, which is subject to a mortgage in favour of ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd.

[7] For a period Ms Jefferies and Mr Pagan were in a personal relationship. During the relationship Ms Jefferies sold her home and lent Mr Pagan a substantial sum which he did not repay. Following the separation, Ms Jefferies commenced proceedings to recover what was owed to her. On 22 March 2022, Ms Jefferies

obtained judgment by default against Mr Pagan. The amount of the…

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 Jefferies v Pagan

Details

AGLC: Jefferies v Pagan [2025] NZHC 1738
Case: [2025] NZHC 1738
Decision Date: 27 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jefferies v Pagan involves Claire Bridget Jefferies, the judgment creditor, seeking to enforce a judgment debt against Walter Richard Pagan, the judgment debtor, through an application for adjudication of bankruptcy. The creditor’s application has been repeatedly adjourned to allow time for the debtor to settle the debt, particularly through the sale of his home. Mr Pagan has applied to halt the creditor's application, arguing that an instalment payment order made by the District Court under s 153 of the District Court Act 2016 implies a stay of the creditor's application. The court was required to determine whether the making of the instalment payment order is a valid ground to halt the creditor's application.

The court considered whether the making of the instalment payment order acts as an implied stay of further enforcement of the judgment. The court rejected Mr Pagan’s submissions, finding that the cases relied upon by Mr Pagan were distinguishable on the facts and involved different statutory provisions. The court held that the creditor, Ms Jefferies, had not agreed to a stay of her creditor’s application as she had not sought such an order, had opposed any order being made, and had no right to review the District Court’s decision once the order was made. The court also found that the instalment payment order was unrealistic and not a feasible arrangement for Ms Jefferies to accept. The court refused to halt the creditor’s application, finding it unjust for Mr Pagan to resile from his earlier intention to settle the debt in full.

The court ordered that the creditor's application be set down for hearing at the next available list before the Blenheim High Court. The court also noted that the issue of costs may need to be addressed if an order for adjudication is sought at the next hearing.

Orders