Waitomo Adventures Limited v O'Hagan

[2015] NZHC 185

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

CIV-2013-419-822 [2015] NZHC 185

UNDER	the Insolvency Act 2006
IN THE MATTER	of the bankruptcy of Brent O'Hagan
BETWEEN	WAITOMO ADVENTURES LIMITED Judgment Creditor
AND	BRENT O'HAGAN Judgment Debtor

Hearing:	16 February 2015
Appearances:	Mr Braun for jdugment creditor Mr O'Hagan in person
Judgment:	16 February 2015

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE J P DOOGUE

WAITOMO ADVENTURES LIMITED v O'HAGAN [2015] NZHC 185 [16 February 2015]

[1]      Approximately a year ago, in February 2014, I directed that the proceedings against Mr O’Hagan were to be the subject of a halt order.  The purpose of the Court making that order was to enable Mr O’Hagan to take steps which he said were necessary to set aside the judgments of the ERA and the Employment Court relating to his dispute on the grounds that the judgment creditor, had put forward perjured evidence at the hearing in that jurisdiction.  Mr O’Hagan subsequently commenced proceedings in the High Court at Tauranga for that purpose but they were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.   He then issued proceedings in the Employment Court. That application too was dismissed by a judgment of an Employment Court Judge delivered on 11 December 2014.  The form that the judgment took was to strike out Mr O’Hagan’s statement of claim.  It is not my function to consider the judgment in detail.  Sitting in this jurisdiction I do not have any jurisdiction to furnish me with powers of appeal which would enable me to set aside the judgment of the Employment Court.  I accept the submission that Mr Braun made for the judgment creditor  that  the  judgment  of  the  Employment  Court  of  11  December  2014  is effectual and governs the rights of the parties.

[2]      Today Mr O’Hagan made a number of criticisms of the judgment of 11

December 2014.  In my view making such observations on the accuracy or otherwise of that judgment in this Court is misplaced.  The facts are the Employment Court has not seen matters his way but the judgment of that Court stands.

[3]      Mr O’Hagan invited me to direct a further halt of the proceeding.   That however could only be justified if I was entitled to and came to the view that I did not  agree  with  the  conclusions  of  the  Employment  Court  and  that  my  own conclusion was that notwithstanding what the Employment Court had said I consider that the judgment allegedly obtained by perjury ought to have been set aside.  None of those conditions can be satisfied. There are therefore no grounds to grant a further halt of the proceeding and I direct that the halt order that I made in February 2014 is now at an end.

J P Doogue

Associate Judge