The Official
Assignee’s refusal to allow bankrupt property developer David Henderson to
leave the country has been upheld by the High Court. Bankrupt on debts exceeding $100 million with
no dividend paid out to creditors and described by the Official Assignee as
being unco-operative, Henderson is looking to depart New Zealand permanently to
pursue offshore business opportunities in the biogas industry.
Mr Henderson was bankrupted in 2010. It is his second bankruptcy. He remains bankrupt after the Insolvency
Service blocked his automatic discharge from bankruptcy after three years. It alleges Mr Henderson has failed to respond
to requests for financial information relevant to his bankruptcy. He complains the Insolvency Service is being
vindictive and punitive.
In June 2014, he emailed the Insolvency Service
requesting approval to leave New Zealand.
The following month a border alert was lodged to block any unauthorised
departure. In the 2013 calendar year, over 1300 bankrupts were given approval
to travel outside New Zealand.
The High Court was told Mr Henderson plans to
visit unspecified sites in North America, South America and Hong Kong to
finalise licensing of a biogas engine. Installation in Christchurch is
envisaged. Mr Henderson indicated there
are employment possibilities arising from the proposed project. He stated an intention to leave New Zealand
permanently.
The Official Assignee asked for some
corroborative evidence of the employment possibilities and how these might
benefit Mr Henderson’s New Zealand creditors.
No evidence was provided to the Official Assignee’s satisfaction. Approval to travel was refused. The Official Assignee also expressed concern
that Mr Henderson’s plans appeared to envisage carrying on a business while
overseas. There are tight constraints on
any person managing a business while bankrupt.
Associate Judge Osborne ruled the Official
Assignee was justified in refusing permission to travel. Mr Henderson may still make a second
application for consent to travel, said Judge Osborne, but he would have to
meet the Official Assignee’s request for further information.
Henderson
v. Official Assignee – High Court (12.06.15)
15.067