ULLRICH ALUMINIUM CO LIMITED v DJ BLACKMORE HC WN CIV-2012-485-730

ULLRICH ALUMINIUM CO LIMITED v DJ BLACKMORE HC WN CIV-2012-485-730

The court approved the Part 5 creditors' proposal because procedural requirements were met, a sufficient majority of creditors in number and value accepted it, the proposal (a one‑off $100,000 underwritten payment) provided a greater and more certain return to creditors than bankruptcy would, there was no evidence of debtor misconduct warranting Official Assignee scrutiny, and any understatement of total indebtedness was a formal error correctable under s333(6) that did not alter the substance of the proposal.

Citation
openlaw-50afa83c_8598_46f0_8f22_050e744d2aed.pdf
Parties
Creditor: Ullrich Aluminium Co Limited; Debtor / Judgment Debtor: David John Blackmore; Proposed Trustee: Geoffrey Robert Hart
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Part 5 Creditors' Proposal Under the Insolvency Act 2006; Alternative Application for Adjudication in Bankruptcy / Application for Court Approval Under S333; Alternative Bankruptcy Adjudication Application Dismissed
Outcome
Part 5 creditors' proposal approved; alternative application for adjudication in bankruptcy dismissed; costs to lie where they fall
Legal Topics
Creditors' Proposal, Court Approval Under S333, Voting of Creditors, Trustee Appointment, Official Assignee Investigation
Insolvency Law Bankruptcy Law Civil Procedure Creditors' Proposal Court Approval Under S333 Voting of Creditors Trustee Appointment Official Assignee Investigation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ullrich Aluminium Co Limited

Creditor

David John Blackmore

Debtor / Judgment Debtor

Geoffrey Robert Hart

Proposed Trustee

Procedural Posture

Part 5 Creditors' Proposal Under the Insolvency Act 2006; Alternative Application for Adjudication in Bankruptcy / Application for Court Approval Under S333; Alternative Bankruptcy Adjudication Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural requirements of Part 5 Sub‑Part 2 were complied with under s333(3)(a)
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the proposal are reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of creditors under s333(3)(b)
  3. 3 Whether it is expedient in the public interest to approve the proposal under s333(3)(c)

Ratio Decidendi

The court approved the Part 5 creditors' proposal because procedural requirements were met, a sufficient majority of creditors in number and value accepted it, the proposal (a one‑off $100,000 underwritten payment) provided a greater and more certain return to creditors than bankruptcy would, there was no evidence of debtor misconduct warranting Official Assignee scrutiny, and any understatement of total indebtedness was a formal error correctable under s333(6) that did not alter the substance of the proposal.

Court Disposition

Part 5 creditors' proposal approved; alternative application for adjudication in bankruptcy dismissed; costs to lie where they fall

Orders

  • The Part 5 proposal from David John Blackmore is approved under s333 Insolvency Act 2006
  • The application by Ullrich Aluminium Co Limited for adjudication in bankruptcy is dismissed