Prescott v Police - [2025] NZHC 638

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2020-404-002232

[2025] NZHC 638

BETWEEN
PETER-RICHARD PRESCOTT

Applicant / Judgment Debtor

AND

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Respondent / Judgment Creditor

Hearing: 18 March 2025

Appearances:

Applicant in Person

A Goosen for the Respondent (via VMR)

Judgment:

26 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE COGSWELL

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 March 2025 at 3.30 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date.......................................

Solicitors:

Crown Law, Wellington

PRESCOTT v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2025] NZHC 638 [26 March 2025]

[1] The applicant seeks annulment of his bankruptcy under s 309(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2006 (Act).

[2] The judgment debt on which the bankruptcy adjudication was based arises from costs orders made in favour of the petitioning creditor, the New Zealand Police, arising from several unsuccessful applications for judicial review, appeals, recall and other applications made by the applicant, stemming from a fine he received for a traffic infringement in 2016.

[3]The application is opposed by the respondent, the New Zealand Police.

[4] The Official Assignee was served with the application as required by s 309(2) of the Act and abides the decision of the Court. It notes that it has incurred $34,313 in fees and costs, much of which have been incurred in dealing with the applicant’s various Court challenges to his adjudication.

Background

[5]The background leading to the current application is:

(a)On 20 July 2016, a speed camera recorded that a car registered in the applicant’s name was travelling above the speed limit.

(b)The applicant was sent an infringement notice. He denied the charge.

(c)On 27 October 2016, the applicant failed to appear before Justices of the Peace (JPs), who heard and determined the charge in the applicant’s absence. The JPs imposed a fine of $80 and court costs of $30. The applicant appealed the decision of the JPs.

(d)On 21 March 2018, the District Court dismissed the applicant's appeal.1

(e)Rather than seek leave to bring a second appeal, Mr Prescott applied to judicially review the District Court decision. Jagose J struck out

1 Police v Prescott [2018] NZDC 5372.

the applicant's application and ordered the applicant pay the respondent costs and disbursements in the sum of $6,943.96.2

(f)The applicant then unsuccessfully applied to have the High Court recall its judgment.

(g)Next, the applicant applied to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal the High Court judgment and for a stay of the costs order. On 22 August 2019, the Court declined both applications and ordered the applicant pay the respondent a further $5,798 by way of costs and disbursements.3

(h)The applicant then unsuccessfully applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court declined leave and awarded a further $2,500 in costs to the respondent.4

(i)The applicant then sought leave to appeal the District Court decision out of time. That application was granted by the…

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 Prescott v Police 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 638
Decision Date: 26 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Prescott v Police involves an application by Peter-Richard Prescott to annul his bankruptcy under s 309(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 2006. The bankruptcy arose from costs orders made against Prescott in relation to several unsuccessful applications stemming from a traffic infringement fine in 2016. The New Zealand Police, as the judgment creditor, opposes the application. The legal issues before the court were whether there was a defect in the procedure, abuse of process, or subsequent evidence that would have affected the outcome of the adjudication, justifying annulment of the bankruptcy order.

The court found that the applicant's grounds for annulment did not meet the strict criteria established by previous cases. The applicant argued that his inability to hear the submissions made by the Police's counsel during the adjudication hearing deprived him of a fair opportunity to present his case, thereby breaching natural justice. However, the court found that the applicant had ample opportunity to raise and substantiate any cross claims he had, but failed to do so. The applicant's hearing difficulties did not prevent him from fully participating in the hearing, as he was never deprived of an opportunity to raise cross claims or respond to the Police's arguments. The court also noted that the applicant's delay in applying for annulment, coupled with his refusal to provide a statement of affairs to the Official Assignee, further weighed against granting the annulment.

The court concluded that Prescott had failed to establish any grounds for annulment of his bankruptcy. There was no defect in procedure, abuse of process, or subsequent evidence that would have affected the outcome of the adjudication. Therefore, the application for annulment was declined, and the respondent is entitled to costs. The court will determine the costs on the papers, allowing the respondent to file a memorandum of no more than five pages seeking costs, with an opportunity for the applicant to respond with a memorandum of no more than five pages.

Orders