Lynch v White - [2016] NZHC 792

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-2282 [2016] NZHC 792

IN THE MATTER of the Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE MATTER

of the bankruptcy of Amanda Adele White

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH Judgment Creditor

AND

AMANDA ADELE WHITE Judgment Debtor

Hearing: 11 April 2016

Counsel:
Appearance:

PJ White for judgment creditors and defendant
CT Jones for Official Assignee in the estates of AA White and

ALE Freeman

AA White, judgment debtor in person
No appearance on behalf of defendants in CIV-2014-404-3311

Judgment:

26 April 2016

JUDGMENT OF FAIRE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 April 2016 at 4 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Sellar Bone, Auckland
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, Auckland

To: A White, Auckland

Lynch v White [2016] NZHC 792 [26 April 2016]

IN THE MATTER
CIV-2014-404-2284

of the Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE MATTER

of the bankruptcy of Anne Leoline Emily
Freeman

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH Judgment Creditor

AND

ANNE LEOLINE EMILY FREEMAN Judgment Debtor

CIV-2014-404-2485

BETWEEN

AMANDA ADELE WHITE First Plaintiff

ANNE LEOLINE EMILY FREEMAN Second Plaintiff

AND

CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH First Defendant

STUART GORDON SPENCE Second Defendant

The application

[1] On 29 February 2016 Ms White and Ms Freeman filed an application seeking a stay or suspending enforcement of the orders made by me in my judgment of
15 December 2015.1

Procedural background

[2] In my judgment delivered on 15 December 2015:

(a) I declined the application of Ms White and Ms Freeman to rescind my earlier judgment of 14 May 2015; and

(b) Made orders adjudicating Ms White and Ms Freeman bankrupt.

[3] My judgment of 14 May 2015 struck out a statement of claim filed by Ms White and Ms Freeman. That statement of claim had sought orders setting aside a judgment given by Priestley J on 19 June 2013.2 I recorded the three claims made
in the statement of claim as follows:3

[5] The first is a claim that the judgment was obtained by fraud and is therefore a collateral attack on the judgment. The defendants allege that the plaintiffs’ case does not satisfy the test which must be met to allow such an attack to be made.

[6] The second is that the various specific claims for remedies sought from Mr Spence in the proceeding are matters that were dealt with by Priestley J in the judgment.

[7] The third is that the various allegations amounting to negligence are made against Mr Lynch and likewise, were dealt with by Priestley J in his judgment. Accordingly, the defendants claim that those claims are barred either by the principle of res judicata or issue estoppel.

[4] Ms White and Ms Freeman applied to set aside my judgment of 14 May

2015. Their application was made in reliance on r 7.51 on the basis that my earlier judgment had been given in respect of an interlocutory application, namely the strike out application, and therefore was amenable to challenge…

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 Lynch v White

Details

AGLC: Lynch v White [2016] NZHC 792
Case: [2016] NZHC 792
Decision Date: 26 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Lynch v White ([2016] NZHC 792) involves the bankruptcy of Amanda Adele White and Anne Leoline Emily Freeman. The primary issue before the court was whether to grant an application for the suspension of the adjudication of bankruptcy made against White and Freeman, pending an appeal against the earlier decision of the court. The application was made under section 416 of the Insolvency Act 2006. The applicants sought the suspension to pursue their grievances against the defendants in their personal capacity rather than through the Official Assignee.

The legal issues considered by the court included the criteria for granting a suspension order pending appeal and the merits of the appeal itself. The court assessed the application using the factors identified by the Court of Appeal in Bioletti v Commissioner of Inland Revenue. These factors included the potential injury to the defendants, the effect on third parties, the novelty and importance of the appeal, the public interest, the balance of convenience, and the strength of the appeal. The court found that the appeal lacked merit as it essentially sought to relitigate issues already decided by the court. The appeal was deemed abandoned due to the failure to pay the required security for costs.

The court concluded that the application for suspension was not justified. The refusal of the application was based on the lack of merit in the appeal, the absence of a valid appeal on which to base the suspension, and the potential injury to the defendants if the suspension were granted. The court also noted the history of unsuccessful attempts by the applicants to challenge the earlier judgments. The application was therefore refused, and the court reserved the question of costs pending further submissions from the parties.

Orders