In Hampton v Minter Ellison Rudd Watts  NZCA 291 the Court of Appeal found that ordering a stay of enforcement of a bankruptcy order would undermine the insolvency law regime.
The appellant, Mr Hampton had been adjudicated bankrupt. Subsequently, Justice Venning in the High Court discharged him from bankruptcy subject to conditions. Mr Hampton however applied for a stay of enforcement of Venning J’s judgment and a stay of the original adjudication order under rule 17.29 of the High Court Rules. The effect sought was for the entire bankruptcy to be 'undone' in order for him to continue a proceeding brought prior to bankruptcy.
The Court of Appeal held that r 17.29 does not apply as Mr Hampton is not a liable party under a judgment. Bankruptcy is a status rather than a form of liability and an adjudication of bankruptcy is distinct from an enforcement order. There was no jurisdiction to make the order sought under r 17.29 as it would cut across the fundamental principle of insolvency law that the bankrupt’s assets vests in the Official Assignee.
The judgment text can be found here.