King v Harrison - [2022] NZHC 2184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2022-404-000824

[2022] NZHC 2184

UNDER
The Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006, Privacy Act 2020, Trans-Tasman

Proceedings Act 2010, Trans-Tasman Proceedings (Specified Australian Insolvency Judgments Excluded from

Recognition or Enforcement in New Zealand and Excluded Matter) Order 2013 and Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

JEREMY DAVID ALLEN KING
Appellant

AND

BRETT RICHARD GEOFFREY HARRISON

Respondent

Hearing: 30 August 2022

Appearances:

Appellant in person

PJ Bedogni for Respondent

Judgment:

2 September 2022

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 2 September 2022 at 11 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Martelli McKegg, Auckland. Copy to Appellant.

KING v HARRISON [2022] NZHC 2184 [2 September 2022]

The case

[1] Jeremy King was adjudicated bankrupt in Australia. Brett Harrison was appointed his bankruptcy trustee. Mr King has repeatedly sued Mr Harrison. Judge D J Clark dismissed one of Mr King’s suits.1 Mr King appeals. This judgment addresses his appeal.

Background

[2] On 13 July 2016, Mr King was adjudicated bankrupt by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. On 20 January 2017, Mr Harrison was appointed Mr King’s bankruptcy trustee. Mr King has not cooperated with Mr Harrison. Rather, he has sued Mr Harrison, both here and in Australia.

[3] On 24 March 2021, Judge J C Hollister-Jones dismissed the first of Mr King’s New Zealand suits.2 Mr King sued Mr Harrison for defamation. Judge Hollister-Jones dismissed the suit as one like it had already been dismissed by an Australian Court.

[4] This brings me to the suit underlying the appeal. On 8 April 2021, Mr King filed a statement of claim against Mr Harrison alleging he had breached the Trans-Tasman Proceeding Order 2013. On 21 December 2021, Mr King filed an amended statement of claim alleging Mr Harrison had breached the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006, Privacy Act 2020, and committed bribery. Mr Harrison applied to strike out the claim and for summary judgment.3 On 12 May 2022, Judge Clark granted Mr Harrison’s applications and dismissed Mr King’s claim.4

[5] All causes of action are based on events between March 2018 and May 2020. In this period, Mr Harrison contacted New Zealand entities, asking if Mr King had assets here.5 Mr Harrison referred to the fact Mr King had been made bankrupt in Australia. Mr King alleges one or more of the entities gave information to

1      King v Harrison [2022] NZDC 7471.
2      King v Harrison [2021] NZDC 5654.
3      And in the alternative, for security for costs.
4      King v Harrison, above n 1.
5      Mr Harrison accepts he contacted ASB Bank Ltd and Nationwide Investments Ltd.

Mr Harrison.6 Mr King also alleges Mr Harrison’s disclosure of his bankruptcy caused him harm:

The breaches by the Defendant/Trustee has prevented myself from:

a. Opening and operating of a standard New Zealand bank account, and in difficulty receiving my NZ pension.

b. Not being able to…

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 King v Harrison

Details

AGLC: King v Harrison [2022] NZHC 2184
Case: [2022] NZHC 2184
Decision Date: 2 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of King v Harrison, the appellant, Jeremy David Allen King, who had been adjudicated bankrupt in Australia, was appealing against the dismissal of his claims against the respondent, Brett Richard Geoffrey Harrison, his bankruptcy trustee. The claims related to alleged breaches of the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006, the Privacy Act 2020, and bribery. The primary legal issues in this case were whether the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act and the Privacy Act could give rise to a private cause of action and whether the bribery allegation disclosed a cause of action known to law. The court found that the appellant's arguments were not reasonably arguable. The court held that the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act was not intended to create a duty enforceable by private action. Furthermore, the Privacy Act did not provide a cause of action for the appellant's claims. Finally, the court held that the bribery allegation did not disclose a cause of action known to law. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded 2B scale costs.

Orders