The New Zealand Supreme Court has denied a man’s second recall application related to a bankruptcy order against him, despite findings of misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct against his former solicitor. The court’s decision comes after the associate judge found the applicant’s liabilities exceeded his assets by over $5.5m, even on the applicant’s own analysis.
The applicant had initially applied for an extension of time to appeal the bankruptcy order, which was denied by the Court of Appeal. He then applied to the Supreme Court for an extension of time, which was also denied.
Background of the Case
The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal found the solicitor guilty of seven misconduct charges and two unsatisfactory conduct charges under ss 7 and 12 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. According to the applicant, the solicitor’s “defective and illegal creditors proposal and his fraud $1M + GST invoice were influential” in an associate judge’s finding that the applicant was bankrupt.
Despite these findings, the Supreme Court maintained that the bankruptcy order would not lead to an apparent procedural or substantive error resulting in a miscarriage of justice. The court described the applicant’s recall application and informal submission of evidence as incoherent. Discounting the solicitor’s $1.15m invoice, the court pointed out that the applicant’s liabilities to the respondent and other creditors exceeded his assets of $6,000 by more than $4.35m, including secured creditors exceeding $2.6m, even on the applicant’s own evidence.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court denied the applicant’s first recall application in February 2024, citing that the applicant’s liabilities exceeded his assets by more than $4.35m, even after discounting the solicitor’s $1.15m invoice. The court also noted that the applicant’s recall application shared the vice of his previous filings.
The court’s decision was based on the principle that the applicant failed to meet the high standard for recall. The Supreme Court also ordered the registrar not to accept for filing any additional applications from the applicant in connection with this matter.
Related: Partial or Temporary Settlements in Family Mediation
The Supreme Court noted that this proceeding arose from the applicant’s unpaid judgment debt for costs awarded by the Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the second recall application shared the vice of the applicant’s previous filings. The court held that the applicant failed to prove that he was not insolvent at the time of the adjudication. “The spectral existence of funds that may have been held by a trust of which the applicant was a trustee and beneficiary does not alter that legal reality,” the court wrote.
Implications of the Decision
Before the Supreme Court, the applicant again applied for a recall of its refusal to extend the time to apply for leave to appeal. On 17 August 2026, in Memelink v Collins & May Law [2026] NZSC 112, the Supreme Court declined the second recall application because the applicant failed to meet the high standard for recall. The court ordered the registrar not to accept for filing any additional applications from the applicant in connection with this matter.
The Supreme Court made a 24 June 2026 decision granting a short further continuation of a stay of an order imposing a six-month suspension on a legal practitioner under ss 242(1)(e) and 244 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act.
