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 Honour in that decision dismissed Mr Memelink’s application for recall of the “bankruptcy judgments”.

[5]                  In December 2024, Mr Memelink made an application for review of a Registrar’s refusal to accept for filing an application to recall the bankruptcy judgment. Mr Memelink was attempting to avoid the filing another annulment application in view of his unsuccessful serial attempts to relitigate that. The grounds for that review were that the Deputy Registrar was not suitably qualified. That review was unsuccessful in a judgment of 17 December 2024.4 In that judgment, La Hood J noted that McQueen J made no “recommendation” attributed to her by Mr Memelink. Further La Hood J commented:

3      Memelink v Collins & May Law [2024] NZHC 1187.

4      Memelink v Collins & May Law [2024] NZHC 3869.

[10] Mr Memelink’s repeated attempts to challenge the validity of his bankruptcy have been dismissed in various judgments of the senior courts, including twice in the Supreme Court. There can be no doubt that the doctrine of res judicata applies to this further attempt by Mr Memelink to challenge his bankruptcy. It would plainly be an abuse of the Court’s process for it to proceed.

[6]                  Mr Memelink’s further assertions of fraud and deceit on their face are mere allegations. They represent another attempt to relitigate the unsuccessful bankruptcy annulment application. The review of the Registrar’s decision falls to be considered under r 2.11(1)(b) of the High Court Rules 2016. The Judge may make any orders they consider just.5 The application referred by the Registrar is a blatant attempt by Mr Memelink to revisit the bankruptcy annulment, following numerous unsuccessful earlier attempts to do so. The Registrar was correct in declining to accept it as an abuse of the court’s process for the reasons he gave.

[7]                  I  decline   the   application   for   review   of   the   Registrar’s   decision   of 6 January 2025. Mr Memelink’s application for annulment of his bankruptcy should not be accepted for filing.

Grice J

5      High Court Rules 2016, r 2.11(2).