Ward v Ward

[2021] NZHC 649

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2019-419-000230

[2021] NZHC 649

UNDER

the Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE MATTER

of the bankruptcy of

RUSSELL STUART WARD

BETWEEN

CHRISTOPHER ALLAN WARD and DIANNE LORRAINE JAMES

Substituted Judgment Creditors

AND

RUSSELL STUART WARD

Judgment Debtor

Hearing:	On the papers
Minute:	29 March 2021

JUDGMENT OF DOWNS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 29 March 2021 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

Smith and Partners, Auckland. Copy to: Judgment Debtor.

WARD v WARD [2021] NZHC 649 [29 March 2021]

[1]    On 15 March 2021, Associate Judge Andrew held Russell Ward would be adjudicated bankrupt unless he paid $15,229 to the substituted judgment creditors by 4 pm, 30 March 2021.1 Mr Ward has filed an appeal (in the Court of Appeal). Mr Ward has also applied for an order suspending the adjudication until his appeal is decided. I deal with the application in this brief judgment. I do so because I was in Hamilton when the application was filed; Associate Judge Andrew had left.

[2]    Section 416 of the Insolvency Act 2006 provides for this application. It re-states what was s 9 of the Insolvency Act 1967. The Court of Appeal held suspension was not required under s 9 for the bankrupted person to appeal, nor a necessary incident of the right to appeal.2 These principles endure. This Court has held the fact the debtor will endure the consequences of bankruptcy pending an appeal is not a basis to suspend the adjudication, unless there is “something beyond the ordinary”.3

[3]    Mr Ward identifies several arguments he wishes to pursue on appeal. These would revisit what the Associate Judge held. None appears strong. Suspension would prejudice the substituted judgment creditors by yet more delay; the case has been going for some time. Most importantly, Mr Ward does not identify circumstances beyond the ordinary to warrant this Court’s intervention. Rather, his submissions presuppose an appeal would be rendered nugatory unless bankruptcy is suspended. That assumption has been rejected by the Court of Appeal and this Court.

[4]The application is dismissed.

…………………………..

Downs J

1      Ward v Ward [2021] NZHC 510.

2      Lindsay v Vaucluse Holdings Ltd CA272/99, 13 December 1999.

3      Kroon v Westpac Banking Corporation HC Auckland, CIV-2006-404-4720, CIV-2006-404-1970, 15 May 2007 at [9].