Re Beaton

Case [2015] NZHC 1304


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-1067 [2015] NZHC 1304

UNDER Section 119(2) of the Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE MATTER

of ANDREW ROBERT BEATON

IN THE MATTER

of an application by Andrew Robert BEATON for a vesting order following a Disclaimer of Property by the Official Assignee dated 19 April 2011

BETWEEN

ANDREW ROBERT BEATON Plaintiff

Hearing: On the Papers

Appearances:

P Cogswell for Applicant

Judgment:

10 June 2015

JUDGMENT OF WHATA J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Whata on

10 June 2015 at 10.00 a.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:

Solicitors:

Cogswell Law, Auckland

BEATON [2015] NZHC 1304 [10 June 2015]

[1]      This is an application for a vesting order following a disclaimer of property by the Official Assignee.

[2]      All relevant parties that were required to be served in accordance with a direction of this Court consent or otherwise do not oppose the application.

[3]      The application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Andrew Robert Beaton. He confirms the following matters:

(a)      He was adjudicated bankrupt on 16 April 2009 and discharged from bankruptcy on 16 April 2012.

(b)Together with his wife he was a joint tenant in a property at 7 Edward Street, Riverhead, Auckland (Identifier NA11D/909, North Auckland Registry, as being Lot 11, Deposited Plan 56486) (“the land”).

(c)       Mr Beaton owns the land in equal shares with his wife.

(d)      The land was subject to a mortgage in favour of ANZ National Bank

Ltd and a charging order in favour of Metind Ltd.

(e)       The ANZ  mortgage  was  not  in  default  and  the  Official Assignee

disclaimed its interest in Mr Beaton’s share of land on 19 April 2011.

[4]      An affidavit is also  filed by Ms Pamela Jane Beaton,  who confirms the matters raised by Mr Beaton in his affidavit.

[5]      I also have the affidavit of Paul Reid Cogswell confirming: (a)          Consent by the ANZ National Bank Ltd.

(b)      Consent by Metind Ltd.

(c)      Acknowledgement of service by the Official Assignee together with confirmation that the Official Assignee does not wish to be heard on the application.

(d)An  e-mail  from  Treasury,  acknowledging  receipt  of  service  by Treasury and also recording that it is the Treasury that deals with the disclaimed property not the Attorney-General.

(e)      A copy of a Treasury letter of 22 December in relation to the related caveat proceeding indicating that it does not consent, nor oppose the orders sought.

[6]      At my request, Treasury have also confirmed that it neither consents to, nor opposes the application.

[7]      Given that the parties affected by the application consent or do not oppose the vesting, I am satisfied that the orders sought by Mr Beaton should be made in the interests of justice.

[8]      Accordingly, there shall be the following orders:

(a)       That  the  interest  of Andrew  Robert  Beaton  in  the  property  at  7

Edward Street, Riverhead, Auckland, more particularly described in Identifier NA11D/909,  North Auckland Registry,  as  being  Lot  11, Deposited Plan 56386, currently vested in the Crown bona vacantia, be vested in Andrew Robert Beaton.

(b)      There is no order regarding costs.

Details
AGLC
Re Beaton [2015] NZHC 1304
Case
[2015] NZHC 1304
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Beaton involved an application by Andrew Robert Beaton for a vesting order following a disclaimer of property by the Official Assignee. The Official Assignee had disclaimed its interest in Mr Beaton’s share of a property located at 7 Edward Street, Riverhead, Auckland on 19 April 2011. The property was jointly owned by Mr Beaton and his wife, and was subject to a mortgage with ANZ National Bank Ltd and a charging order in favour of Metind Ltd. The key legal issue for the court to decide was whether the interest of Mr Beaton in the property should be vested in him, given the disclaimer by the Official Assignee and the consent of all relevant parties.

The court found that all relevant parties either consented to the vesting or did not oppose it. These parties included ANZ National Bank Ltd, Metind Ltd, the Official Assignee, and Treasury. The court considered the affidavits of Mr Beaton, his wife, and their solicitor, which provided the necessary details about the property, the disclaimer, and the consent of the parties involved. The court was satisfied that the vesting of Mr Beaton’s interest in the property was in the interests of justice. The court concluded that the application should be granted and made the orders sought by Mr Beaton.

The court ordered that the interest of Andrew Robert Beaton in the property at 7 Edward Street, Riverhead, Auckland, which was currently vested in the Crown bona vacantia, be vested in him. The court did not make any order regarding costs. The decision effectively allowed Mr Beaton to reclaim his share of the property from the Crown, following the disclaimer by the Official Assignee.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.