Williams v Simpson no.6 (Reasons) HC Hamilton CIV 2010-419-1174
[2010] NZHC 1965
•5 November 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY
CIV 2010-419-1174
UNDER the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006
BETWEEN STEVEN JOHN WILLIAMS Applicant
ANDALAN GERAINT SIMPSON Debtor
Hearing: 5 November 2010
Counsel: K J Crossland and P J Morris for Applicant
P F Gorringe for Debtor
D M O'Neill for Mr Clough
P J Morgan QC for Ms Mann
A Reimer-Reeder and J Cuellar for Commissioner of Inland Revenue
G Caro for Official Assignee
Judgment: 5 November 2010
Reasons: 10 November 2010
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (NO. 6) OF HEATH J
Solicitors:
Stace Hammond P O Box 19-101 Hamilton 3244
Tompkins Wake, PO Box 258, Hamilton Kerry Burroughs, PO Box 19307, Hamilton Anderson Lloyd, PO Box 201, Queenstown
Inland Revenue Department, PO Box 761, Waikato Mail Centre, Hamilton
Companies Office, PO Box, Auckland
Counsel:
P Gorringe, PO Box 7098, HamiltonD M O’Neill, PO Box 815, Hamilton
P J Morgan QC, PO Box 19021, Hamilton
WILLIAMS V SIMPSON HC HAM CIV 2010-419-1174 5 November 2010
A directions hearing
[1] This proceeding arises out of a request for assistance by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (the English Court) in respect of a debtor who is resident in New Zealand.
[2] Following my decision to assist the English Court,[1] a hearing took place on 5
[1] Williams v Simpson HC Hamilton CIV 2010-419-1174, 12 October 2010.
November 2010, for further directions to be given. I made a number of orders and indicated that I would make others.[2] These reasons relate to the orders actually made. A separate judgment is being delivered contemporaneously on other aspects raised at the hearing.
[2] See para [11] below.
Background
[3] Mr Simpson was adjudged bankrupt by the English Court on 9 September
2009. After an initial period of administration by the Official Receiver, Mr Williams was appointed as trustee in bankruptcy of Mr Simpson’s estate (the English bankruptcy). During the course of the administration, Mr Williams received information that Mr Simpson had undisclosed assets, in the form of gold and silver bullion, in New Zealand. Mr Williams made an application to this Court for recognition of the English bankruptcy.[3] Although Mr Simpson was discharged from the English bankruptcy after one year, the assets in issue (if his property) remain vested in Mr Williams, as trustee.
[3] Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006, Schedule 1, art 15. Schedule 1 enacts, in a modified form, the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency developed by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law: generally, see Williams v Simpson HC Hamilton CIV 2010-419-1174, 17 September 2010 at paras [33]-[37].
[4] On making his application, Mr Williams sought interim relief in the form of a warrant to search Mr Simpson’s residence in New Zealand, at 35 Ann Street, Hamilton.[4] The warrant was sought to enable a search to be undertaken for the gold and silver bullion that Mr Simpson was allegedly hiding from his creditors. For
[4] Ibid, Schedule 1, art 19.
reasons set out in my judgment of 17 September 2010, a search warrant was issued.[5]
[5] Williams v Simpson HC Hamilton CIV 2010-419-1174, 17 September 2010.
I also made an order authorising the examination of Mr Simpson before an Associate Judge of this Court, so that information could be gathered about the extent of his property interests in New Zealand.[6]
[6] Ibid, para [56](c).
[5] On the day that search warrant was issued, counsel for Mr Williams provided to me a Letter of Request from the English Court seeking assistance from this Court, in the event that the English bankruptcy could not be characterised either as a “foreign main” or “foreign non-main” proceeding for the purposes of Schedule 1 to the Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006 (the Act).
[6] The search warrant was executed on 20 September 2010. Gold and silver bullion was located. On an application made while the search was in progress, I extended the ambit of the search to include documentary evidence (digital and paper) and foreign currency located at the premises.[7] During the course of an examination before Associate Judge Faire on 21 September 2010, Mr Simpson denied (on oath) that the items seized were his, contending that the trustees of the B V Adams No 2
[7] Williams v Simpson (No. 2) HC Hamilton CIV 2010-419-1174, 20 September 2010.
Trust (Mr Clough and Ms Mann) were the lawful owners.
[7] I issued a second search warrant on 29 September 2010,[8] based on new evidence that indicated that compartments had been built below floor level in the dwelling, in which there was reason to believed that gold and silver bullion might be found. A search was conducted that evening and further bullion was located and seized.
[8] Williams v Simpson (No. 4) HC Hamilton CIV 2010-419-1174, 29 September 2010.
[8] On 12 October 2010, I found that the English bankruptcy did not meet the criteria for recognition but exercised my discretion under s 8 of the Act to assist the English Court by enabling the trustee of the English bankruptcy to get in assets
owned by the bankrupt in New Zealand, subject to any further directions that might be required in relation to the distribution of any proceeds of sale.[9]
[9] Williams v Simpson (No. 5) HC Hamilton CIV 2010-419-1174, 12 October 2010 at paras [41]-[66] and [88].
[9] Among the orders made to provide that assistance, I entrusted the Official Assignee at Hamilton (as the Court’s agent) with the administration or realisation of all of Mr Simpson’s assets located in New Zealand and authorised him to exercise powers of examination under the Insolvency Act 2006.[10] The Official Assignee was required to advertise the s 8 order and to call on any creditor of Mr Simpson in New Zealand to lodge a proof of claim on or before 29 October 2010.[11] The Official Assignee was also required to file and serve a report, on or before 2 November 2010, containing the results of inquiries into ownership of assets seized during the course of the searches conducted on 20 and 29 September 2010, the value of those assets, a list of any other assets Mr Simpson may own that were situated in New Zealand and the names, number and value of New Zealand based creditors who had lodged claims.[12]
[10] Ibid, paras [89](d) and (e).
[11] Ibid, para [89](f).
[12] Ibid, para [89](g).
[10] I also required any person claiming ownership of assets seized during the searches to file and serve a notice of claim, on or before 29 October 2010,[13] with particulars setting out the basis on which ownership was asserted. The proceeding was adjourned to 5 November 2010,[14] for further directions to be made.
[13] Ibid, para [89](h).
[14] Ibid, para [90].
[11] On 5 November 2010, after recording a number of points traversed in argument, I gave an oral judgment, in the course of which I made various orders to facilitate resolution of remaining issues:[15]
[15] Williams v Simpson (No. 6) HC Hamilton CIV 2010-419-1174, 5 November 2010.
a)I declare that all property seized during the execution of search warrants at 35 Ann Street, Hamilton on 20 and 29 September 2010, together with bullion surrendered voluntarily by Mr Simpson subsequently, is property of Mr Simpson and has vested in Mr Williams, as his trustee in bankruptcy in England.
b) The Official Assignee is authorised to sell that property (with the exception of currency) and to hold the net proceeds of sale in a trust account, pending further order of the Court.
c)All foreign exchange seized during the course of the two searches shall be converted and banked into the trust account opened by the Official Assignee, pending further order of the Court.
d)The Official Assignee shall make no payments from the trust fund, save as authorised by this Court.
e) Subject to (g) below, the Official Assignee is authorised to summon for examination any person whom he believes is able to give information about the assets of Mr Simpson in New Zealand. For the sake of clarity, I indicate that extends not only to properly currently known but also property that may subsequently come to the attention of the Official Assignee.
f) The Official Assignee is authorised to exercise the powers conferred by ss 165, 166, 167 and 171 of the Insolvency Act 2006 subject to ss
168, 169 and 172. The powers extend to the ability to require a person to produce and to surrender any document in his or her possession or control relating to Mr Simpson’s property conduct or
dealings in accordance with s 165(1)(b).
g) With regard to Ms Mann and Mr Clough, the following specific directions are made:
i)No further examination of Ms Mann shall occur without further order of this Court, made on notice to Ms Mann. I record that Mr Morgan, on her behalf, indicated any such application would be opposed. It is likely a defended hearing on that substantive issue would be required.
ii) Leave is reserved for the Official Assignee to summon Mr Clough to be examined but he shall have seven days within which to apply to set aside the summons. If application were made, no examination shall be held until the Court has determined the application.
h)Because there is a commonality of interest between Mr Williams, as trustee of the English bankruptcy and the Official Assignee, in relation to the identification of property in New Zealand, it is open for a representative of Mr Williams to attend any examination conducted by the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee is authorised to instruct one counsel to conduct the examination, who may (but does not need to) be Mr Crossland or someone else from his firm.
i) The Official Assignee shall return to Mr Simpson the cloned computer data taken from the computer seized from Mr Simpson’s home. The original computer shall be retained by the Official Assignee, for evidential purposes.
j)Mr Simpson may make an application under either s 163 or s 164 of the Insolvency Act 2006 for living expenses to be paid to him by the Official Assignee out of assets realised. I make it clear that full disclosure will be expected from Mr Simpson if he were to be given the benefit of an allowance of that type by the Official Assignee. Having said that, whether and, if so, what quantum allowance is made is for the Official Assignee to determine.
k) Memoranda from counsel for Ms Mann and Mr Clough shall be filed and served on or before 12 November 2010, setting out their views on beneficial ownership in respect of Henmur Ltd shares, the Isle of Wight property and the account at Nationwide Bank in the name of J W Smith.
l) The Official Assignee shall file and serve a further report on all developments subsequent to this hearing, on or before 17 December
2010.
Directions dealing with property rights and realisations
(a) Bullion and foreign currency
[12] The Official Assignee’s report of 2 November 2010 advised the Court that gold and silver bullion seized from the Ann Street property, together with a quantity that was subsequently surrendered voluntarily by Mr Simpson to the Official Assignee, had been valued, at spot market rate, at $2,132,319.53.[16] After deduction of likely realisation costs, the net value of the bullion seized was stated to be
[16] All dollar values are in New Zealand currency.
$1,865,330.94. That valuation was given on the basis that all bullion was sold in the local market in one transaction. Higher values could be expected if sold locally in a piecemeal fashion or on the international market.
[13] The valuer indicated that a “conservative approach would be to sell some of the bullion on the local market and perhaps either export the balance or hold it in stock to sell over time, depending on the timeframe for sale”.
[14] Foreign currency was also located at the Ann Street property, during the search. The currency recovered is estimated (on prevailing exchange rates) to be something in the order of $37,500.
[15] No claims to ownership of this property were made by any party. In contrast to Mr Simpson’s evidence before the Associate Judge,[17] the two trustees of the B V Adams No 2 Trust deny that those assets were held by them on trust. In those circumstances, I was satisfied that the bullion seized and delivered voluntarily to the Official Assignee, together with the currency located, was property of Mr Simpson personally that had vested in Mr Williams as trustee of the English bankruptcy.
[17] See para [6] above.
[16] For those reasons, I made a declaration of ownership in respect of that property and authorised the Official Assignee to bank the currency into a trust account, to sell the bullion and to hold the net proceeds on trust, pending further order of the Court. I directed that there be no payments made from that trust fund without the prior authorisation of the Court.[18]
[18] See para [11](a)-(d) above.
(b) Other property
(i) Location
[17] As a result of his investigations, the Official Assignee has other identified other property that may be owned by Mr Simpson. Some assets are situated in New Zealand, others are overseas. In the orders I made on 5 November 2010, I differentiated between those two categories of property.
(ii) Property outside New Zealand
[18] Potentially, sources of property interests outside New Zealand are:
a) The possibility of beneficial ownership in Sennex Ltd[19] (registered in the British Virgin Islands), Tiger Speed Ltd (registered in Hong Kong), Cricketers Pension Fund Ltd and Bamboo Asia Ltd (both of which have bank accounts believed to be located in Hong Kong).
[19] This company holds a registered mortgage over the Ann Street property in which Mr Simpson resides.
b)The Official Assignee has identified Trident Corporate Services (BVI) as a “facilitator”, based in the British Virgin Islands, that appears to have been instructed on or about 24 August 2004 to establish bank accounts in the name of Sennex Ltd, with the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank, in Hong Kong. The Official Assignee considers that the evidence indicates the various bank accounts operated by Sennex Ltd, Cricketers Pension Fund Ltd and Bamboo Asia Ltd have been operated under the direction and control of Mr Simpson. Some of the funds appear to have been transferred to New Zealand in late December 2006 or early 2007, but further investigation is required into whether funds remain in other jurisdictions.
c) Tiger Speed Ltd has a corporate director (Dolbue Ltd) and shareholder (Sobertron Ltd). Information obtained by the Official Assignee, in the form of an annual fee account dated 31 December
2007, indicates the fee was payable by Sennex. That is confirmed by a letter from Mr Simpson to the company providing secretarial services (R D Secretaries (1990) Ltd) of 13 September 2006, confirming instructions and providing an indemnity for any future claims. Ms Mann (one of the trustees of the B V Adams No 2 Trust) has confirmed to the Official Assignee that she was the “go to” person for Tiger Speed Ltd, following what appears to have been a relinquishing of control by Mr Simpson on or about 15 October 2009, shortly after his adjudication in bankruptcy in England. Ms Mann confirmed on oath that she was acting for Mr Simpson’s personal benefit.
d)Tiger Speed Ltd owns a property on the Isle of Wight, acquired on or about 5 October 2006. At the hearing on 5 November 2010, Mr Gorringe, for Mr Simpson, told me that Mr Simpson’s position is that this property is held on trust for the beneficiaries of the B V Adams No 2 Trust. As a result, I required counsel for Ms Mann and Mr
Clough, as trustees of that trust, to file and serve memoranda setting out their views on beneficial ownership of this property.[20]
[20] See para [11](k) above.
e) There is also strong evidence to suggest that Mr Simpson has operated an account with the Nationwide Building Society in Swindon, England, in the name of “James Walter Smith”. At his examination before Associate Judge Faire, on 21 September 2010, Mr Simpson denied he had used that alias. This account is currently frozen, as a result of an order made by the English Court on 29 October 2010, in proceedings brought by Mr Williams to obtain access to funds in three
accounts which together total approximately £156,000.[21]
[21] Williams v Simpson and Smith (High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Manchester District Registry Case 5950/2009, 29 October 2010, Judge Waksman QC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court). The beneficial ownership of this account is something on which I have sought memoranda from counsel for Ms Mann and Mr Clough, as trustees of the B V Adams No 2 Trust: see para [11](k) above.
[19] For the first time, during the hearing on 5 November 2010, Mr Simpson agreed to execute a worldwide authority to enable Mr Williams to inquire into property situated in other jurisdictions. Mr Simpson’s reluctance to do that previously is chronicled in my interim relief judgment of 17 September 2010.[22] In part (at least) Mr Simpson’s prevarication on that topic led to Mr Williams’ application to this Court.
[22] Williams v Simpson HC Hamilton CIV 2010-419-1174, 17 September 2010 at paras [10]-[18].
[20] Now that the worldwide authority has been given, it is open for Mr Williams to make inquiries in the British Virgin Islands and Hong Kong, if necessary using cross-border insolvency mechanisms available in those jurisdictions to secure assets to which he is entitled. For that reason, I did not consider it was necessary to authorise the Official Assignee to conduct further investigations into property situated overseas. Rather, I thought it more appropriate to leave any further inquiries of that type to be dealt with on a specific request from the English Court should that
Court consider further assistance was required.[23]
[23] Williams v Simpson (No. 6) HC Hamilton CIV 2010-419-1174, 5 November 2010 at para [16].
(iii) New Zealand property
[21] The Official Assignee’s report revealed the possibility of further property located in New Zealand. I considered it was appropriate for the Official Assignee to pursue investigations in that regard and made orders authorising him to conduct examinations under s 165 of the Insolvency Act 2006 to do so.[24]
[24] See para [11](e), (f), (g) and (h) above
[22] Some of the possible assets of Mr Simpson in New Zealand came to light when parties on notice of the existence of my order of 12 October 2010 advised the Official Assignee that Mr Simpson was attempting to deal with property, contrary to the terms of an earlier order.
[23] In summary, that property includes:
a) A sum of $30,700 held in an account with OMFinancial Ltd, an Auckland based futures’ options and foreign exchange broker. Mr Simpson’s instruction was to transfer the balance of funds held to the bank account of the B V Adams No 2 Trust.
b)Shares in Contact Energy Ltd, held jointly in the names of Mr Simpson and his divorced wife. A brokerage company based in Hamilton advised the Official Assignee of Mr Simpson’s attempt to deal with this property.
c) An Austin vintage motor vehicle that had been made available by Mr
Simpson to auctioneers for sale.
[24] All of those transactions have been suspended pending further direction of this Court. In reviewing this aspect of the case, the original injunction issued on 17
September 2010 preventing Mr Simpson from transferring unencumbered or otherwise disposing of assets situated in New Zealand has been overtaken by my
orders of 12 October 2010. For the avoidance of doubt, I reinstate that order in a separate judgment to be delivered contemporaneously.[25]
[25] Williams v Simpson (No. 7) HC Hamilton CIV 2010-419-1174, 10 November 2010 at para [4].
[25] There is a question about the beneficial ownership of shares in a New Zealand registered company, Henmur Ltd. That company has its registered office at the residential address of its sole shareholder and director, Ms Mann. At an examination before the Official Assignee, Ms Mann confirmed she held all shares as a bare trustee or nominee for Mr Simpson personally; and did so at his request. Henmur Ltd has two accounts with SBS Bank in Hamilton, the current balance of which are $522,719.32 and $2,171.45.
[26] Those accounts have been frozen pending further order of this Court. As Mr Simpson suggests that beneficial ownership of these shares rests with the trustees of the B V Adams No 2 Trust, I directed memoranda from counsel for Ms Mann and Mr Clough to set out their views on beneficial ownership of these shares.[26]
[26] See para [11](k) above.
[27] Finally, the Official Assignee queries whether the Ann Street property is, in fact, held on trust by the trustees of the B V Adams No 2 Trust. This claim appears, on existing evidence, to be less likely to succeed.
(c) Extent of examination powers
[28] The examination powers given to the Official Assignee are to be exercised in accordance with the private examination procedures of the Insolvency Act 2006. While it is arguable that this Court may have jurisdiction to order an examination on a wider basis than that,[27] it will generally be appropriate for provisions applicable to a New Zealand bankruptcy to be used for this purpose.[28]
[27] Insolvency (Cross-border) Act 2006, s 8(2).
[28] See also, Omegatrend International Pty Ltd (in liq) v New Image International Ltd HC Auckland CIV 2010-404-4098, 5 October 2010 (Associate Judge Faire) at paras [8]-[14], in the context of an application to have similar examinations conducted in open Court.
[29] Two exceptions were carved out from the general authorisation for the
Official Assignee to conduct private examinations in respect of property of
Mr Simpson in New Zealand. The exceptions relate to the positions of Ms Mann and Mr Clough.
[30] In the case of Ms Mann, a specific order of this Court is required before Ms Mann may be examined further.[29] Mr Morgan QC, on her behalf, submitted that the examination had been completed and he would argue it was oppressive for a further examination to be convened. A similar point arose in Re Northrop Instruments & Systems Ltd.[30] McGechan J’s judgment in that case may be of assistance to counsel, if Mr Williams or the Official Assignee were to make an application to the Court.
[29] See para [11](g)(i) above.
[30] Re Northrop Instruments & Systems Ltd [1992] 2 NZLR 361 (HC).
[31] Mr Clough’s position is different. While overseas, he has co-operated fully with the Official Assignee and has provided an affidavit setting out his position that the only property settled on the B V Adams No 2 Trust is the 35 Ann Street residence. Because of that co-operation, I gave Mr Clough the opportunity to apply to set aside any summons within seven days of service, on the basis that no
examination would be held until the Court had determined his application.[31]
[31] See para [11](g)(ii) above.
[32] An issue had arisen between the Official Assignee and Mr Williams, after my judgment of 17 October 2010, about the extent to which Mr Williams or his counsel could participate in inquiries (in particular, examinations) that might be undertaken by the Official Assignee. Concerns had arisen out of my comment that the Official Assignee was “acting solely as the Court’s agent” and, to avoid conflicts in relation to questions of ownership or distribution of property, “it may be preferable for the Official Assignee to be represented independently from Mr Williams for the balance
of this proceeding”.[32]
[32] Williams v Simpson (No. 5) HC Hamilton CIV 2010-419-1174, 12 October 2010 at para [93].
[33] Those observations were made because of my perception that an issue could arise in relation to distribution of property if, as had been suggested in expert evidence filed on behalf of Mr Williams, any claim by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue for taxation arrears in New Zealand might not be admitted to proof in the
English bankruptcy.[33] In the event of such conflict, the Official Assignee could not be seen to be siding with one claimant over another.
[33] Ibid, at para [82].
[34] However, it is imperative to prevent the haemorrhaging of costs in this proceeding. In relation to the investigation of New Zealand based property of Mr Simpson, there is a commonality of interest between Mr Williams and the Official Assignee. For those reasons, I considered it was appropriate to permit (if he saw fit) the Official Assignee to instruct counsel presently acting for Mr Williams (or someone else from his firm) to conduct any examination or to allow a representative
of Mr Williams to attend any examination conducted by the Official Assignee.[34] I
[34] See para [11](h) above.
also gave permission for transcripts of examinations conducted by the Official Assignee to be released to Mr Williams, on the basis that he would have possession of them on the statutory terms that the Official Assignee presently holds them.[35]
[35] Williams v Simpson HC Hamilton CIV 2010-419-1174, 5 November 2010 at para [13].
[35] Restrictions on the use of private examination transcripts are found in s 169 of the Insolvency Act 2006. That section proscribes publication of “a report” of any examination of a person summoned by the Assignee or any matter arising in the course of that examination.[36] On the Official Assignee’s application, the Court may permit publication of such a report, on such conditions as it sees fit.[37] Contravention of the non-publication rule amounts to a criminal offence, for which a person is
[36] Insolvency Act 2006, s 169(1).
[37] Ibid, s 169(2).
liable on summary conviction to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding $5000, or both.[38]
[38] Ibid, s 169(3).
[36] The nature of a “report”, for the purposes of s 169, was considered in relation to the comparable provisions of the Insolvency Act 1967, in Re Baird (a bankrupt).[39]
[39] Re Baird (a bankrupt) [1994] 2 NZLR 463 (HC).
In that case, Master Kennedy-Grant held that the word “publish” imported “a far wider degree of dissemination than occurs in either the incorporation of the transcript in” an Official Assignee’s report; whether by way of quotation, summary, appending
of documents produced or appending of the whole transcript.[40] On that basis, no consent is required for the use of transcripts in an evidential sense by the Official Assignee. Nor, because of the ability of the Court to authorise publication, can there be any complaint about a reference to evidence given on examination in a judgment of the Court.
[40] Ibid, at 466-468.
(d) Living expenses for Mr Simpson
[37] Because the Official Assignee has possession of assets to which Mr Simpson might otherwise have recourse and other bank accounts are frozen, Mr Simpson seeks the indulgence of an allowance pending determination of issues arising in the proceeding. That application was opposed by Mr Williams, primarily on the ground that Mr Simpson had been unco-operative, had attempted to thwart orders of the Court designed to enable prompt determination of ownership issues and should not be allowed to use funds that would otherwise be available for unsecured creditors.
[38] I decided that Mr Simpson should have recourse to the provisions of the Insolvency Act 2006 that enable an Official Assignee to make an allowance to a bankrupt, or permit a bankrupt to retain money for the purpose of his or her immediate maintenance and those of any relatives and dependents.[41]
[39] Sections 163 and 164 of the Insolvency Act provide:
[41] See para [11](j) above.
163 Assignee may make allowance to bankrupt
The Assignee may make an allowance out of the property of the bankrupt to the bankrupt or any relative or dependant of the bankrupt for the support of the bankrupt and his or her relatives and dependants.
164 Assignee may allow bankrupt to retain money
(1) The Assignee may allow the bankrupt to retain, for the immediate maintenance of the bankrupt and his or her relatives and dependants, any money up to a maximum of $1,000 that the bankrupt has in the bankrupt's possession or in a bank account at the time of adjudication.
(2) The Governor-General may, by Order in Council, amend subsection (1) by increasing the maximum amount that the Assignee may allow the bankrupt to retain, to take account of any rise in the Consumer Price Index.
[40] I made it clear that “full disclosure” would be expected from Mr Simpson if he were to seek the benefit of that type of allowance. The decision on any application was for the Official Assignee to make, in terms of either s 163 or s 164.[42]
[42] See also Re Anderson HC Hamilton B213/89, 14 April 1992 (Penlington J).
Miscellaneous orders
[41] Mr Simpson sought return of a computer seized from his home during the search on 20 September 2010. I declined that request to preserve the integrity of the evidence seized by the Official Assignee. Mr Simpson’s conduct to date is such that I cannot discount the possibility of an attempt being made to interfere with evidence for his own purposes.
[42] Because the data on the seized computer has been cloned, I saw no reason why the cloned data could not be returned to Mr Simpson, with the original computer being retained by the Official Assignee, for evidential purposes. I made an order to that effect.[43]
[43] See para [11](i) above
[43] It will be necessary for the Official Assignee to provide a further report on subsequent investigations. I directed that report to be filed on or before 17
December 2010.[44]
[44] See para [11](l) above.
P R Heath J
0
0
0