Lister v Begum - [2025] NZHC 2331

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-3092

[2025] NZHC 2331

UNDER The Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE MATTER OF

the bankruptcy of Shamina Begum

BETWEEN

ANDREW ROSS LISTER and ZHANNA LISTER

Judgment Creditors

AND

SHAMINA BEGUM

Judgment Debtor

CIV-2024-404-3106

IN THE MATTER OF

The Bankruptcy of Mohammed Sadiq

BETWEEN

ANDREW ROSS LISTER and ZHANNA LISTER

Judgment Creditors

AND

MOHAMMED SADIQ

Judgment Debtor

Hearing: 15 August 2025

Counsel:

Ms Y Lee for the Judgment Creditors Ms Bergh for the Judgment Debtors

Date of Judgment:

18 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BRITTAIN

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 August 2025 at 3 pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Solicitors:
Killian & Associates, Auckland

…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

LISTER v BEGUM [2025] NZHC 2331 [18 August 2025]

Introduction

[1] The judgment debtors, Mohammed Sadiq and Shamina Begum (Mr Sadiq and Ms Begum) contracted to purchase a property from the judgment creditors, Andrew Lister and Zhanna Lister (Mr and Mrs Lister). Mr Sadiq and Ms Begum failed to pay the deposit. On 17 September 2024, Gault J entered summary judgment for Mr and Mrs Lister against Mr Sadiq and Ms Begum for the deposit together with interest and costs.1

[2] Mr and Mrs Lister served bankruptcy notices on Mr Sadiq and Ms Begum on 13 December 2024, requiring payment of the amount of $286,094.50 due under the judgment. Mr Sadiq and Ms Begum failed to satisfy the bankruptcy notices and Mr and Mrs Lister have filed applications for orders adjudicating them bankrupt.

[3] Mr Sadiq and Ms Begum oppose bankruptcy, on the ground that they are solvent and will shortly be able to settle the judgement debt. The sole issue to be determined is whether the Court should exercise its discretion not to adjudicate Mr Sadiq and Ms Begum bankrupt.

[4] At the hearing on 15 August 2025, I determined that this is not an appropriate case for an exercise of the discretion in favour of the debtors. At the conclusion of the hearing on 15 August 2025, I made orders adjudicating Mr Sadiq and Ms Begum bankrupt, on the basis that I would subsequently deliver a judgment confirming my reasons, which I now do.

Legal principles

[5]Section 36 of the Insolvency Act 2006 (the Act) provides:

36 Court may adjudicate debtor bankrupt

The court may, at its discretion, adjudicate the debtor bankrupt if the creditor has established the requirements set out in section 13.

[6] Section 13 requires that the debtor owes the creditor a debt for a certain amount of $1,000 or more, payable immediately or at a date in the future that is certain, and

1 Lister v Sadiq HC Auckland CIV-2024-404-1720, 17 September 2024 (Minute of Gault J).

that the debtor has committed an act of bankruptcy within a period of three months before the filing of the application for an order for adjudication.

[7] Mr and Mrs Lister have met 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 Lister v Begum

Details

AGLC: Lister v Begum [2025] NZHC 2331
Case: [2025] NZHC 2331
Decision Date: 18 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Lister v Begum involved a dispute between the judgment creditors, Andrew Ross Lister and Zhanna Lister, and the judgment debtors, Mohammed Sadiq and Shamina Begum. The Listers had obtained a summary judgment against Sadiq and Begum for failing to pay a deposit on a property purchase, and subsequently issued bankruptcy notices. Sadiq and Begum opposed the bankruptcy applications on the basis that they were solvent and would soon be able to settle the judgment debt. The central issue before the Court was whether it should exercise its discretion under the Insolvency Act 2006 not to adjudicate Sadiq and Begum bankrupt.

The Court considered the statutory framework provided by the Insolvency Act 2006 and the relevant case law. Section 36 of the Act grants the Court discretion to adjudicate a debtor bankrupt if the creditor establishes certain requirements, while Section 37 allows the Court to decline to make such an order under specific circumstances, such as if the debtor is solvent. The Court noted that the onus was on Sadiq and Begum to demonstrate why an adjudication order should not be made. The Court also highlighted that it is not common practice to reassess the correctness of the underlying judgment but may do so if there is good reason to doubt the liability.

In assessing Sadiq and Begum’s solvency, the Court scrutinised the evidence provided. Sadiq claimed ownership of historical assets being repatriated through a program facilitated by the United Nations and a new financial system called the Quantum Financial System. However, the evidence presented, including bank statements and communications, was deemed unconvincing and insufficient to establish that Sadiq and Begum were solvent or capable of settling the judgment debt. The Court concluded that there was no credible evidence that Sadiq and Begum were solvent or could pay the judgment debt.

The Court determined that this was not an appropriate case for exercising its discretion in favour of Sadiq and Begum. As a result, Sadiq and Begum were adjudicated bankrupt. The Court also ordered Sadiq and Begum to pay the Listers' costs and disbursements as fixed by the Registrar.

Orders