Supreme Court denies second recall request arising from bankruptcy matter
Regardless of the misconduct and unsatisfactory conduct findings against his former solicitor, the New Zealand Supreme Court dismissed a man’s second recall application arising from the High Court’s bankruptcy order against him in August 2018.
Before the Court of Appeal, the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal from the bankruptcy order. This extension application was a year out of time.
The appeal court denied an extension upon applying the principles in Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80. According to the associate judge, the applicant’s liabilities exceeded his assets by over $5.5m, even on the applicant’s own analysis.
Before the Supreme Court, the applicant again applied for an extension of time. This extension application was over two years out of time. On 10 November 2022, the Supreme Court refused to extend the time to apply for leave to appeal.
Over a year later, the applicant applied for a recall of that judgment. In this recall application, he made multiple complaints against his former solicitor, who was also one of his creditors.
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.
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. The High Court affirmed this finding.
On 23 February 2024, in Memelink v Collins and May Law [2024] NZSC 16, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s first recall application.
The court explained that maintaining the bankruptcy order would not lead to an apparent procedural or substantive error resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
The court ordered no costs because a substantial response from the respondent was unnecessary.
The Supreme 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.
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 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.
Here are some other recent decisions by the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
In upholding a refusal to extend the time for an applicant to file leave applications in a family matter, the Supreme Court issued a 14 August 2026 decision acknowledging his legal training and “familiarity with civil procedure,” as seen in his applications with the Court of Appeal of New Zealand and the High Court of New Zealand.
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.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest restructuring and insolvency law news on the main page!
