Leeds v Richards - [2016] NZHC 1191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-140 [2016] NZHC 1191

UNDER the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006

IN THE MATTER OF

a request for assistance to facilitate the enforcement of an order dated 19

December 2014 of the high Court of
Justice of England and Wales

BETWEEN

MICHAEL THOMAS LEEDS AND

NICHOLAS STEWART WOOD Applicants

AND

MURRAY RICHARDS First Respondent

STEINDLE WILLIAMS LEGAL LIMITED

Second Respondent

Hearing: 30 May 2016

Appearances:

S Bisley for Applicants
No appearance for Respondents

Judgment:

3 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 June 2016 at 1:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
…………………………………………………….
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Buddle Findlay (S Bisley), Auckland, for Applicants

LEEDS v RICHARDS [2016] NZHC 1191 [3 June 2016]

[1] The applicants are the English joint trustees in bankruptcy of the estate of Mr Richards. Vivendi SA and Centenary Holdings III Ltd obtained judgment against Mr Richards in the Chancery Division of the High Court in England for
£14,193,461.41 on 9 October 2013.1 On Vivendi’s application the English High

Court adjudicated Mr Richards bankrupt on 19 December 2014. The applicants were appointed joint trustees on 5 February 2015. Judicial administration of the bankruptcy passed to the County Court at Croydon. On 16 November 2015 it issued a letter of request to this court to act in its aid and be auxiliary to it under s 8 of New Zealand’s Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006. Specifically it sought the following assistance:

1that the bankruptcy order and the appointment of the joint trustees be recognised in New Zealand;

2that the joint trustees may exercise the powers conferred on the Official Assignee under ss 165(1) and 171 of the Insolvency Act to obtain from Steindle Williams Legal Ltd information relevant to Mr Richards’ bankruptcy; and

3that the joint trustees may apply to this court for further relief if assets are located in New Zealand and which require this court’s assistance to realise or if examination powers are required to obtain further information.

By originating application the trustees have sought orders in those terms.

[2] The trustees have applied under s 8 of the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act:

8 High Court to act in aid of overseas courts

(1) This section applies to a person referred to in article 1(1) of
Schedule 1.

(2) If a court of a country other than New Zealand has jurisdiction in an insolvency proceeding and makes an order requesting the aid of the High Court in relation to the insolvency proceeding of a person to whom this section applies, the High Court may, if it thinks fit, act in aid of and be auxiliary to that court in relation to that insolvency proceeding.

(3) In acting in aid of and being auxiliary to a court in accordance with subsection (2), the High Court may exercise the powers that it could exercise in respect of the matter if it had arisen within its own jurisdiction.

They…

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 Leeds v Richards

Details

AGLC: Leeds v Richards [2016] NZHC 1191
Case: [2016] NZHC 1191
Decision Date: 3 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Leeds v Richards, the joint trustees of the bankrupt estate of Murray Richards sought orders in the New Zealand High Court to facilitate enforcement of a judgment obtained against Mr Richards in England. The trustees applied to the court under s 8 of the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006 to be recognised as joint trustees in bankruptcy and to obtain information held by Steindle Williams Legal Ltd, an Auckland law firm. They sought to do so to enforce the bankruptcy order against Mr Richards. Mr Richards opposed the application for a stay, contending that an Australian court was a more appropriate forum. The court dismissed the application for a stay, finding that an Australian court would not recognise orders made by an Australian bankruptcy court against Steindle Williams Legal Ltd, and that New Zealand was the more appropriate forum. The court directed the parties to file affidavits and submissions, and set a date for the hearing of the substantive application.

Orders