BALLMAN v ASB BANK LIMITED [2020] NZHC 456

BALLMAN v ASB BANK LIMITED [2020] NZHC 456 [10 March 2020]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDNELSON REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROAWHAKATŪ ROHECIV-2019-442-75[2020] NZHC 456UNDER THE Insolvency Act 2006BETWEEN DEREK BALLMANInsolventAND ASB BANK LIMITED, AVANTI FINANCELIMITED, BANK OF NEW ZEALAND,COLUMBUS FINANCIAL SERVICESLIMITED, HARMONEY LIMITED, JADEFINANCE LIMITED, LATITUDEFINANCIAL SERVICES LIMITED ANDSBS MONEY LIMITED (WAREHOUSEMONEY)CreditorsHearing: On the papersCounsel: No appearance for InsolventNo appearance for CreditorsG P Seger for the TrusteeJudgment: 10 March 2020JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTERThis judgment was delivered by me on 10 March 2020 at 12.00 pmpursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar/Deputy Registrar10 March 2020[1] This is an application for approval of a creditors proposal under pt 5 of theInsolvency Act 2006 ("the Act").[2] Mr Ballman's proposal concerns eight creditors who are owed in total around$50,000.[3] The proposal is designed to return to the creditors 100 cents in the dollarthrough Mr Ballman making payments over a three-year period. In substance, theproposal is designed to "lock in" time payments of Mr Ballman's debts.[4] All eight creditors voted in favour of the proposal.[5] While the proposal was served by email on the creditors, and I have previouslycommented on the correctness of using email for service, any issue in that regard fellaway when each of the creditors confirmed receipt of the proposal by voting in favourof the proposal.[6] The proposal is in the correct form required by the Act.[7] The Trustee has filed an affidavit as to service of the notice of the presentapplication. That was also sent by email to the eight creditors and but for the fact thatall creditors voted in favour of the proposal, I would have had concerns about the useof email for the giving of the notice of hearing. The practical reality is that havingvoted in favour of the proposal, it is highly unlikely that any of the creditors wouldseek to oppose the proposal being approved by the Court. At the risk of labouring thepoint, I have previously raised my concerns with the giving of notice of the applicationfor approval by way of email and I know the professional Trustee is aware of thoseconcerns. However, given the unanimous support of the creditors I treat theapplication as having been brought to the attention of the creditors.[8] With the unanimous support, I agree with the Trustee that the terms of theproposal are reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of creditors.Certainly, that is the way the creditors have seen it and I see nothing to prevent anorder approving the proposal.[9] Accordingly, there is an order in terms of paragraph 2 of the application dated19 December 2019._________________________Associate Judge LesterSolicitors:Webster Malcolm Law, Warkworth (for the Trustee)