In the Court Of Appeal of New Zealand
CA155/2010
[2010] NZCA 117

BETWEEN	JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH
Appellant

AND	THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE
Respondent

Hearing:	30 March 2010

Court:	Chambers, O'Regan and Ellen France JJ

Counsel:	Appellant in person
J N Foster for Respondent

Judgment:	30 March 2010 

Reasons:	14 April 2010

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT	
A	The appeal is dismissed.
B	No order as to costs.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Chambers J)
[1]	John Slavich, the appellant, is an undischarged bankrupt.  He applied in the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus.  Andrews J dismissed the application.  Mr Slavich appealed.  
[2]	The point of an application for a writ of habeas corpus is “to challenge the legality of a person’s detention”.  But Mr Slavich is not detained.  He is free to go wherever he likes within New Zealand.  So he does not get past first base.
[3]	What Mr Slavich is really concerned about is the act of the Official Assignee, the respondent, in having given notice under s 107(3) of the Insolvency Act 1967.  Under that subsection, the Assignee or, with the leave of the High Court, any creditor can enter an objection to what would otherwise be a bankrupt’s automatic right to a discharge from bankruptcy after three years.  Because of that notice, Mr Slavich remains an undischarged bankrupt; but for that notice, he would have been discharged automatically on 2 October 2009.  Mr Slavich complains the Assignee unlawfully gave the s 107(3) notice, but plainly he did not.
[4]	If Mr Slavich wishes to be discharged from bankruptcy, he should be doing what Andrews J told him to do.  That is, he should apply under s 108 of the Act for an order of discharge.  He chose quite the wrong procedural route for what he wants to achieve.  Applying for a writ of habeas corpus is not the right way to challenge a s 107(3) notice or to be discharged from bankruptcy, as Andrews J explained.  
[5]	For these reasons, we dismiss the appeal.

Solicitors: 
Almao Douch, Hamilton, for Respondent