IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE
CIV-2019-409-106
[2020] NZHC 343
IN THE MATTER OF the Insolvency Act 2006 AND
IN THE MATTER OF
the Bankruptcy of Mark Anthony McCreath
BETWEEN
THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE
Applicant
AND
MARK ANTHONY McCREATH
Respondent
Hearing: 20 February 2020 Appearances:
Mr D Dingwall for the Applicant
M A McCreath in person Respondent
Judgment:
2 March 2020
JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER
This judgment was delivered by me on 2 March 2020 at 12.30pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar 2 March 2020
THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE v McCREATH [2020] NZHC 343 [2 March 2020]
[1] Mr McCreath was bankrupted for the fourth time on 21 March 2016. That bankruptcy along with his prior bankruptcies was initiated by him.
[2] Pursuant to s 290 of the Insolvency Act 2006 (“the Act”), the bankrupt was due for automatic discharge on 21 March 2019. That was overtaken by an objection by the Official Assignee under s 292 of the Act.
[3] Mr McCreath’s examination took place on 20 February 2020 having been previously adjourned at Mr McCreath’s request. The Official Assignee completed a report for the examination which Mr McCreath had reviewed prior to the examination. Mr McCreath did not file any papers for the examination.
The Official Assignee’s report
[4]The following timeline arises from the report.
21 March 2016: Bankruptcy. 7 September 2016:
Date of offence of accessing computer system for dishonest purpose – convicted 14 February 2018.
December 2016:
Tip to the Official Assignee that bankrupt had established business.
17 March 2017:
Date of offence for burglary – convicted 14 February 2018.
November 2017:
Investigation into bankrupt’s alleged trading completed and prosecution commenced.
27 April 2018:
Mr McCreath pleads guilty to the following:
(1)Failing without reasonable excuse to notify the Official Assignee of a change of address and income;
(2)Entering and carrying on, taking part and management and control of a business while an undischarged bankrupt;
(3)One charge of making a false entry in a document as a representative charge under the Act and the Companies Act 1993;
(4)Being a party to carrying on a business with intent to defraud creditors;
(5)Representative charges of obtaining by deception;
25 July 2018: Insolvency defences in relation to credit. Sentenced two years, prohibition and prohibited from being a director (which I will return to later). October 2018 to
January 2019:
Official Assignee alleges that the bankrupt was undertaking a new business using an alias– denied by the bankrupt.
[5] Mr McCreath did not take issue with any of the above, save as indicated. That was not surprising given his guilty pleas to the charges listed above and to the history of convictions produced to the Court.
Legal principles
[6] Mr Dingwall for the Official Assignee accepted the onus was on the Official Assignee to satisfy the Court that it was in the public interest that the bankruptcy, which would otherwise be automatically discharged after three…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Official Assignee v McCreath 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2020] NZHC 343
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court held that the Official Assignee had the onus of proving that it was in the public interest to extend McCreath's bankruptcy. The court considered several factors in its decision, including protecting the public from injury, the interests of creditors, and the nature of McCreath's offending. The court found that McCreath's history of dishonesty, his disregard for his bankruptcy obligations, and his use of false documents to advance his position made it appropriate to extend his bankruptcy. McCreath's fourth bankruptcy, his recent convictions for dishonesty and fraud, and his lack of remorse all contributed to the court's decision. The court ultimately decided to extend McCreath's bankruptcy until 25 July 2023, when the five-year prohibition on being involved in business management expires.
The court's decision highlights the importance of considering the public interest and the specific circumstances of each case when deciding whether to discharge a bankrupt. The court found that McCreath's conduct while bankrupt and his history of dishonesty made a discharge untenable at the present time. The court also considered the potential disadvantage to McCreath of being unable to obtain a student loan during bankruptcy, but ultimately found that his conduct outweighed this factor.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.