• Introducing the New Zealand Justice Forum

    The New Zealand Justice Forum aims to pool the collective experiences of our citizens, lawyers, and academics in order to discuss the many defects that weaken the integrity of the legal system.
  • Ministry of Economic Development refuses information request

    Ministry of Economic Development lawyer Grant Slevin, today rejected requests for further information about the policies adopted by the Official Assignee to allow the executor of a deceased estate to take bankruptcy proceedings against her own estate.

    The Ministry had been asked to confirm its practice and policy this week, after the executrix of a mutual estate was allowed to bankrupt a beneficiary to whom she owed a greater amount.

    Last week, Minister for Commerce, the Hon Craig Foss was forced to backtrack on answers to questions concerning the operation of the the Insolvent Debtors Relief Act 1729 (Set-Off Act).

    Mr Foss initially confirmed the statute of set-off is still in force in New Zealand and that the OA could not override it, but later he added; "You will note from the answers above that while the Set-off Act 1735 does still apply in New Zealand the specific provisions in the Insolvency Act 1967 override the Set-off Act. Accordingly, l am advised that the Official Assignee did not need to consider the provisions of the Set-Off Act"

    The questions have been put to Mr Foss to promote codification of the law to include the acts of set-off into current legislation. Its apparent from the case cited that the OA appears to have completely overlooked the statute of set-off which specifically mandates that debts between parties to a mutual estate are not actionable.

    Another query concerned the ability of executors to take court proceedings before gaining title to the estate. An application for probate results in legal title to the property, but in the case cited, the OA allowed the executor to apply for probate after succeeding in a bankruptcy action, ignoring well established legal precedents guiding estate and probate practice.

    Yesterday the Insolvency service was asked on fyi.org.nz whether or not the OA considered the executor of a deceased estate to have the standing to take and conclude Court proceedings in bankruptcy, before obtaining probate?

    A further question asked if the trustees/executors of deceased estates under administration were liable or indemnified for their costs if they were the losing parties in hostile actions against the estate?

    Today the OA's lawyer Grant Slevin, answered both questions by refusing the request " under s 18(e) Official Information Act 1982 because the information does not exist and under s 18(h) because the request is frivolous or vexatious."

    A petition to Parliament is now being circulated to remedy the current practice of the Insolvency Service, which according to several prominent trust experts, ignores a lawful statute and inexcusably disregards every relevant equitable precedent to gain control of an estate.
    Comments 1 Comment
    1. flimflam's Avatar
      flimflam -
      The Privacy Commissionars office. What a joke, I requested that the Commissionars office obtain copies of my children's medical files from their doctor. The doctor only ever provided me with a subset that she considered relevant to me - not the whole record. There are 29 reasons that information can be withheld, all are open to their interpretation. The Commissionars office requests the file from the Dr, goes through it and provides you with what they think you should have. The obvious:

      What if the Dr takes it out of the file before the PC gets it?
      They won't know what was in the file because it's gone.
      I my case two letters from the Dr had been removed, one explained a psychological issue which the Dr had no way of diagnosing. The other letter stated the the Dr would not see her patients when in my care - no reasons were given. This woman was our children's mothers GP too.

      This was a family court matter, the GPs two letters were sent to the Family Court appointed Counsel for children.

      Turns out he drafted the two letters, sent them to the Dr so that she could place them on her letterhead, sign them and send them back to him so that he could submit it to the court.

      Guess what, both letters were not in the file that the PC received from the Dr.

      I alerted the PC to this as I knew that the letters existed. The PC went back to the Dr, copies of the two letters arrived. The moral of the story.

      Don't trust the Dr
      Don't trust Counsel for the child, or do but understand what they are capable of.
      The Privacy Commissionars, well unless you know what you want and of its existence - what are they going to do for you?
  • Copyright

    The New Zealand Copyright Act 1994 specifies certain circumstances where all or a substantial part of a copyright work may be used without the copyright owner's permission. A "fair dealing" with copyright material does not infringe copyright if it is for the following purposes: research or private study; criticism or review; or reporting current events. If you are a legal copyright holder, or a designated agent for such, and you believe a post on this website falls outside the boundaries of "fair dealing," and legitimately infringes on your or your client's copyright, please contact the administrator of this site. NZJF contains both original material and material from external sources. Original material: Copyright NZJF. Material from external sources: Copyright the respective owners / authors.