New Zealand Law Society v Koyama

[2016] NZHC 349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CIV-2015-412-000044 [2016] NZHC 349

IN THE MATTER	of the Insolvency Act 2006
AND
IN THE MATTER	of the bankruptcy of Tatsuhiko Koyama
BETWEEN	NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY Judgment Creditor
AND	TATSUHIKO KOYAMA Judgment Debtor

Hearing:	3 March 2016
Appearances:	A M Cunninghame for Judgment Creditor Mr Koyama, Judgment Debtor, appears in person
Judgment:	3 March 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE MATTHEWS

[1]     In this proceeding the New Zealand Law Society seeks adjudication in bankruptcy of Mr Koyama.  It relies on an expired bankruptcy notice.  The sums the Society maintains are owing to it are costs judgments in relation to proceedings in the Human Rights Review Tribunal, the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme  Court.    The  total  stated  in  the  application  as  owing  is  $44,322.48. Ms Cunninghame, appearing for the Law Society this morning, has filed a certificate certifying that the debt remains unpaid.

[2]      Mr Koyama appears on his own behalf.  He filed an application for a stay of this proceeding on 26 February 2016.  He did not pay the filing fee.  He applied for waiver.  That was declined.  He sought a review of that decision and, on review, the decision not to waive the filing fee was upheld.  Accordingly, an application for a

stay has not been filed and will not be considered.

NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY v TATSUHIKO KOYAMA [2016] NZHC 349 [3 March 2016]

[3]      Mr Koyama has also filed a memorandum seeking a stay, raising issues over the signature on the decision relating to review of the decision concerning waiver of the filing fee.  He says the signature purporting to be that of the Judge is a forgery.  I have considered his submissions and looked at the enlarged photocopy of the signatures which purport to be those of Associate Judge Osborne, which Mr Koyama presented to me.  I am quite satisfied that the decision of Associate Judge Osborne was validly made in chambers and that it was signed in accordance with usual procedure.  That being the position, the decision declining waiver of the fee decision that his Honour made stands.

[4]      After I had dictated the foregoing passage of this decision, Mr Koyama raised with me his wish to inspect the court file so that, as he puts it, he can prepare his defence.  Mr Koyama has not in fact filed a defence to this proceeding.  Nor, for the reasons that I have already recorded, is there an application before the Court to stay it.  Accordingly, the only reason that I can perceive for his wishing to inspect the file at this stage is to further his allegation that the signature of Associate Judge Osborne on his decision is  forged, or that some other fraudulent  act has taken place as Mr Koyama has alleged at various times

[5]      I do not find that to be a valid reason to adjourn this proceeding so that Mr Koyama, who is not defending the proceeding, despite his appearances, can view the file.

[6]      Mr Koyama filed a memorandum  dated 29  September 2015  which,  as  I understand it, he seeks to rely on as supporting a defence to this application.  In this memorandum, Mr Koyama refers to the judgment of 28 May 2014 on which the bankruptcy notice was based.  He says this judgment is an illegal forged document. Whilst he gives reasons for this view, it is plain on their face that these are without foundation.   The judgment is a sealed judgment of the Court.   No application has been made to set it aside, nor to challenge it in any other formal way.  It is a costs decision of Clifford J.  Mr Koyama says he will lodge a formal complaint with the police alleging the crime of forgery and extortion.

[7]      In a second memorandum dated 2 October 2015, Mr Koyama takes issue with whether it was necessary for an application for substituted service to be made.  He says that the judgment of Associate Judge Osborne in relation to substituted service dated 18 September is an illegal forged document and that the Judge did not make the decision.  Mr Koyama says he has lodged a complaint alleging forgery, with the police.

[8]      Again, there is no evident substance to these allegations.  The judgment was properly issued by this Court.  As to whether there was any need for an order for substituted service, I need not revisit the reasons the application was made or the order was made.   The decision speaks for itself.   It is for the police to take such action as they consider appropriate if Mr Koyama maintains his stance.

[9]      Mr Koyama’s next concern arises from the fact that on 26 January 2016

Associate Judge Osborne made an order in relation to substituted service in which he said  “Order  in  terms  of  the  draft  submitted  by  counsel  on  21  January  2016”. Mr Koyama says that there was no draft submitted on 21 January 2016.  He produces to the Court the sealed order dated 27 January 2016 which bears that date both in a stamp on the cover and in handwriting from an Deputy Registrar in the body of the document.  However, on the file there is a draft form of order which bears the High Court stamp “21 January 2016”.  It also bears in red three stamps “Draft”.  This will be the document that the Judge looked at and referred to on 26 January, which is dated 21 January.  There is, therefore, no substance in this point.

[10]     Mr  Koyama’s  final  submission  related  to  the  proceedings  that  had  been

brought against him, which he describes as unjust.

[11]     I have reviewed all the matters put before the Court in Mr Koyama’s written material filed in advance of the hearing, to the extent that it is validly filed.  I have also  considered  his  submissions  and  the  application  by  the  New  Zealand  Law Society.    Even  though  Mr Koyama has  not  filed  a statement  of defence,  I am satisfied that Mr Koyama does not have a defence to the application to adjudicate him bankrupt.  As I have said, the application is made on the basis of final orders of a tribunal and three courts and is valid.   He has neither filed a defence, nor put

forward by memorandum any defence which has any substance.  His application for a stay has not been validly filed as the fee has not been paid.

[12]     I therefore adjudicate Mr Koyama bankrupt.  This order is timed at 11.08 am. I award costs to the New Zealand Law Society on a 2B basis plus disbursements

fixed, if necessary, by the Registrar.

J G Matthews

Associate Judge

Solicitors:

Glaister Ennor, Auckland.

Judgment Debtor self-represented.