Peter Prescott now failed to annul his bankruptcy and can pay more legal fees to the New Zealand police after another unsuccessful trip to the court.
In July 2016, Prescott was caught driving 64 km/h in a zone of 50 km/he received a ticket for her. However, he tried to say that he was not driving the car, nor the owner.
When he did not pay the fine and the matter went to court, Prescott did not appear and he was fined for another $ 80 and $ 30 in court costs.
Two years later, Prescott unsuccessfully appealed the fine in the district court and, instead of seeking license to appeal, sought a judicial review of that decision.
This review request was eliminated and Prescott was ordered to pay nearly $ 7000 in court costs.
Prescott unsuccessfully tried to have the Superior Court to remember this trial before making an offer to the court of appeal to maintain the order of costs.
This was also fired and nearly $ 6000 was added to its growing debt.
Another $ 2500 were added to the bill after Prescott tried and could not register for the Supreme Court.
Prescott had a small victory in 2020 when he requested the Higher Court to appeal the original district court decision before enrolling in the HIGH, appeal and supreme courts to recall previous decisions to refuse a judicial revision.
Then, in December 2020, police filed a bankruptcy notice at Prescott for not paying close to $ 7000 in court costs. Prescott tried and failed to make this reserved bankruptcy warning and received orders to pay another $ 12,000 in costs.
In September 2021, Prescott owed the police $ 27,000 and by 2022 he was declared bankrupt.
Prescott appealed this, then tried to suspend the order and then tried his hand in the court of appeal to reverse the order. None of which was successful.
‘He simply failed to bring the necessary evidence’
In March of this year, Prescott tried to annul his bankruptcy in the Auckland Supreme Court based on the case of the hearing, which declared him bankrupt, was unfair because he had a hearing impairment that prevented him from fully participating in the hearing.
At the same hearing in 2022, Prescott raised five cross complaints against the police, but produced no real evidence to support them.
Prescott said he raised this issue with the court at the time, but did nothing about it.
In his submissions to the Superior Court, he cited the Law of the Declaration of Rights, which states that a person must have a fair opportunity to be heard and a reasonable opportunity to present his case.
Prescott said he was deprived of the opportunity to properly or completely present his case and this was a failure in the procedure and the process.
Associate Judge Paul Cogswell said he carefully considered Prescott’s inscriptions, but was able to find anything in the conduct at the original bankruptcy hearing that reached the standard to nullify the order.
“First, the applicant was never deprived of an opportunity to raise cross claims as opposed to the bankruptcy request,” he said.
“Hearing deficiencies rejoiced by the applicant did not interfere with their ability to properly prepare their opposition of award and founded their alleged cross claims. The applicant knew for many months that evidence was needed to support any such argument.
“He simply failed to bring the evidence necessary to establish cross -claims.”
Associate Judge Cogswell said nothing of the police did or said Prescott presented his case ahead.
“The applicant did not point to any police dependent terrain at the award hearing he could not answer or was embarrassed,” he said.
Prescott also provided no evidence that he had a hearing impediment to the court.
Associate Judge Cogswell dismissed Prescott’s request, based on that he could not prove that the hearing was defective, it was an abuse of process, there was some evidence that could have affected the result or that there was any other reason why he should not have been bankrupt.
Police have the right to claim more legal costs against Prescott because of the unfavorable decision, which will be determined later.
– Jeremy Wilkinson, open justice reporter
