Official Assignee v Erwood

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2010-485-2128 [2013] NZHC 1827

UNDER THE

Insolvency Act 1967

IN THE MATTER OF

applications pursuant to s 85 and s 119 of the Insolvency Act 1967

BETWEEN

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE IN BANKRUPTCY OF THE PROPERTY OF ROBERT JOHN ERWOOD

Applicant

AND

ROBERT JOHN ERWOOD Respondent

Hearing:	4 June 2013
Counsel:	PRW Chisnall for Applicant Respondent in person N Levy as Amicus Curiae
Judgment:	23 July 2013

JUDGMENT OF MACKENZIE J

I direct that the delivery time of this judgment is

12 pm on the 23rd day of July 2013.

Solicitors:           Paul Chisnall, Barrister, Wellington for Applicant

Nicolette Levy, Barrister, Wellington

Copy to:            Mr Erwood

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v ERWOOD [2013] NZHC 1827 [23 July 2013]

Introduction

[1]      This is an application by the Official Assignee for orders:

(a)      granting  leave  to  continue  the  originating  application  pursuant  to r 19.5 of the High Court Rules;

(b)that the respondent’s bankruptcy is annulled pursuant to s 119(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1967 on such conditions as the Court deems fit;

(c)      directing, pursuant to s 119(7)(a) of that Act, the payment of such costs incurred by the Assignee in the administration of the bankrupt’s estate as the Court may see fit;

(d)      releasing  the  Assignee  pursuant  to  s 133  of  that  Act  from  her

administration of the respondent’s estate;  and

(e)      awarding costs and giving any other directions the Court deems appropriate.

[2]      The application was initially made in October 2010.  The application was not at that stage pursued because of other litigation.  An amended application was filed in August 2012.

[3]      The application was heard before me on 4 June 2013.  Mr Erwood appeared in person and Ms Levy provided very helpful assistance to the Court as amicus curiae.  The hearing extended through the morning and continued after the lunch adjournment.   At the break, Mr Erwood was presenting his submissions and he completed them in the afternoon.  Some days later, Mr Erwood filed a memorandum saying that in the lunch break he had been accosted and threatened outside the Court room by a man who had been stalking him for several months.  He said that this had affected his presentation of his submissions after lunch and that, while he had not then asked for an adjournment, he sought a further opportunity to present further

submissions.  Ms Levy also conveyed to me, through the Registrar, that request by

Mr Erwood.

[4]      I have carefully considered Mr Erwood’s request.   For the reasons which I give in dealing with each of the matters in issue, my decisions on the matters addressed in Mr Erwood’s submission do not require a detailed examination of the matters which he addressed after lunch.  He is therefore not at all disadvantaged by any impairment in his oral presentation.  I accordingly am able to deliver judgment without the need for any further hearing.

Part 19, High Court Rules

[5]      I  deal  first  with  the  preliminary  procedural  point,  the  application  for permission to…