Memelink v Collins & May Law - [2025] NZHC 429

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-485-363 [2025] NZHC 429

UNDER rule 2.11 of the High Court Rules 2016

IN THE MATTER

of review of the Registrar’s decision declining to accept an application

BETWEEN

HARRY MEMELINK

Applicant

AND

COLLINS & MAY LAW

Respondent

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

Applicant in person

Judgment:

7 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF GRICE J

(Application for review of Registrar’s decision to decline to accept an application under s 309(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2006 for annulment of adjudication)

[1] Mr Memelink was adjudicated bankrupt on 28 August 2018.1 He remains in bankruptcy. It has been extended to October 2026.2

[2] On 6 January 2025 the Registrar refused to accept for filing an application by Mr Memelink for annulment of his bankruptcy. Mr Memelink has now applied for a review of the Registrar’s decision. The impugned Registrar’s decision was addressed to Mr Memelink and reads:

1 Re Memelink HC Wellington CIV-2018-485-363, 28 August 2018.
2 The Official Assignee v Memelink [2023] NZHC 3044 at [213].

MEMELINK v COLLINS & MAY LAW [2025] NZHC 429 [7 March 2025]

You have already filed, and had judgment issued against, an application under s309(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act for annulment of your adjudication (see the Judgment of Lester AJ dated 14 June 2019 in CIV-2018-485-686).

Both Creser v Creser [2014] NZHC 3267 and Paterson v Lepionka & Company Investments Ltd [2018] NZHC3022 indicate that a bankrupt cannot bring multiple applications to annul as the principle of finality must be upheld. Your claims of fraud do not raise new grounds upon which a new application under s309 could be filed, as these have also been dealt with prior by both Grice J in her judgment of The Official Assignee v Memelink [2023] NZHC 3044 and McQueen J in Memelink v Collins & May Law [2024] NZHC 1187.

I would not be ensuring the efficient and effective administration of the business of the High Court by allowing another application to be accepted. Your application is declined for filing. You may choose to review my decision as a Deputy Registrar under r2.11 of the High Court Rules 2016 if you wish.

[3] In his application for annulment, Mr Memelink makes allegations of fraud against lawyers representing Collins & May in the Court of Appeal in 2016 and 2017 in appeals by Mr Memelink and his trust. Mr Memelink makes bland statements that deceit and fraud “occurred” followed by an allegation that this caused his bankruptcy. He also makes allegations of “fraud, deceit and collusion by the High Court staff”, that they failed to abide by the rules regarding the filing of documents and affidavits, and that the Registrar made breaches “in the legal taking of an oath, affidavit and plan”.

[4] Mr Memelink says McQueen J in Memelink v Collins & May Law3 delivered on 13 May 2024, made a “recommendation” that he “lodged this setting aside application”. Her…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Memelink v Collins & May Law and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZHC 429
Decision Date: 7 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Memelink v Collins & May Law concerns a review application brought by Harry Memelink against the decision of the Registrar of the High Court, who declined to accept an application for annulment of his bankruptcy. Memelink, who was adjudicated bankrupt in August 2018, sought to challenge the validity of his bankruptcy status by applying for annulment. The Registrar, citing the principle of finality and previous dismissals of similar applications by higher courts, refused to accept the application. Memelink has now applied for a review of this decision.

The court was required to determine whether the Registrar's decision to decline to accept the application for annulment was correct. The central issue was whether the application constituted an abuse of process, given that Memelink had previously unsuccessfully attempted to challenge his bankruptcy status on numerous occasions. Additionally, the court needed to assess if the allegations of fraud and deceit were sufficient to warrant a new application under section 309(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2006.

Grice J, in dismissing the application for review, found that the Registrar was correct in his decision. The court highlighted that the doctrine of res judicata applied, as Memelink had previously litigated and lost similar claims in higher courts. The court also noted that the allegations of fraud and deceit were not new grounds but merely a reiteration of previous unsuccessful claims. Furthermore, the court underscored that permitting such an application would constitute an abuse of the court's process.

The court ordered that the application for review of the Registrar’s decision be dismissed, thereby affirming the Registrar's decision not to accept the application for annulment of Memelink's bankruptcy.

Orders