Norris Ward McKinnon Limited v Halse - [2025] NZHC 490

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2023-419-317

[2025] NZHC 490

IN THE MATTER

AND
of the Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE MATTER

of the Bankruptcy of ALLAN GEOFFREY HALSE

BETWEEN

NORRIS WARD MCKINNON LIMITED, SAMUEL WALLACE HOOD and ERIN REBEKAH ANDERSON

Substituted Judgment Creditors

AND

ALLAN GEOFFREY HALSE

Judgment Debtor

Hearing: 12 March 2025

Appearances:

DM Vautier for the Substituted Judgment Creditors AG Halse, Judgment Debtor in Person

Judgment:

13 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCK

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 March 2025 at 10 am pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Fee Langstone, Auckland

NORRIS WARD MCKINNON v HALSE [2025] NZHC 490 [13 March 2025]

Introduction

[1] I issue this judgment making the orders discussed in the hearing of this matter yesterday.

[2] I make an order for adjudication of Mr Halse in bankruptcy but on the basis that the order is to lie in court to allow payment by Mr Halse by Wednesday, 19 March 2025 of the judgment debts claimed in the adjudication application totalling
$27,408.18. Costs of the adjudication application are reserved and discussed further below.

[3] If the amount claimed is not paid by 19 March 2025, Mr Halse ought to be adjudicated bankrupt. I set out my reasons for reaching this decision below by addressing the following:

(a)the validity of the process substituting Norris Ward McKinnon Limited, Samuel Hood and Erin Anderson as the judgment creditors;

(b)Mr Halse’s application for a stay of these proceedings; and

(c)the requirements of the Insolvency Act 2006 before an adjudication order is made.

Substitution process

[4] Norris Ward McKinnon, Mr Hood and Ms Anderson were substituted in as judgment creditors by my minute dated 26 November 2024.

[5] The judgment creditors were the second, third and fourth defendants in proceedings brought by Mr Halse in the High Court. Those proceedings were brought against the Rangiura Trust Board and each of the judgment creditors, being the law firm, the partner and associate who had represented the Trust Board in an employment dispute.

[6] Mr Halse brought claims for deceit, fraud, conspiracy to defraud and knowing assistance against each of the defendants. Those claims were struck out on the application of the Trust Board, supported by the judgment creditors in this case.1

[7] The judgment creditors also successfully brought an application for an extended order under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 restraining Mr Halse from commencing or continuing civil proceedings on that matter or any related matter.2 Costs and disbursements were then awarded to the first defendant and jointly to the judgment creditors of $21,688.50 each.3

[8] Mr Halse appealed to the Court of Appeal but was unsuccessful with further costs awarded of $10,456.25.4 Security for costs had been lodged of $7,236.57 so only
$3,219.68 is outstanding in respect of that decision.

[9] Mr Halse then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court but was…

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 Norris Ward McKinnon Limited v Halse 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 490
Decision Date: 13 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Norris Ward McKinnon Limited, Samuel Wallace Hood and Erin Rebekah Anderson v Allan Geoffrey Halse [2025] NZHC 490 concerns a bankruptcy application brought against Allan Geoffrey Halse. The substituted judgment creditors seek to enforce unpaid costs awards against Halse, which total $27,408.18. The legal issues in the case revolve around the validity of the process that substituted the creditors, Halse’s application for a stay of the proceedings, and whether the requirements of the Insolvency Act 2006 for an adjudication order have been satisfied. The Court found that the substitution process was valid as the original creditor, Turuki Healthcare Charitable Trust, no longer wished to proceed, and the substituted creditors met the criteria in s 44(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act. The Court also held that the act of bankruptcy had occurred prior to the payment of the debt to Turuki, allowing the substituted creditors to rely on that act. Regarding Halse’s stay application, the Court found that his intention to seek a recall of the Court of Appeal’s decision was not sufficient grounds for a stay. The Court further determined that the requirements of s 13 of the Insolvency Act have been satisfied as Halse owes the creditors more than $1,000, has committed an act of bankruptcy, and the debt is for a certain amount payable immediately. The Court exercised its discretion under s 37 of the Act and decided not to make a bankruptcy order if Halse pays the amount by 19 March 2025, allowing him to avoid bankruptcy if he can demonstrate his ability to pay the debt. Costs are reserved pending further submissions from Halse. The Court ordered that if the amount is not paid by the directed date, the bankruptcy order will be confirmed following the filing of a solicitor’s certificate by the judgment creditors.

Orders