TA ROSS v BK ROSS HC WN CIV-2010-485-2515

TA ROSS v BK ROSS HC WN CIV-2010-485-2515

The proposal was dismissed under s333(3)(b) and (c) because it was materially deficient and misleading (failure to disclose trust-owned property and associated offsets, treating secured mortgage as unsecured, no provision for contribution from the debtor's substantial future income, and proposal structured to primarily benefit family trusts and the bank rather than the general body of creditors), and it was not expedient to approve it; having rejected the proposal the Court adjudicated the debtor bankrupt under s13 because the statutory thresholds were met and s37 discretionary grounds to refuse adjudication were not established.

Citation
openlaw-a4a4a889_ef73_4901_b92c_9cc45dee7e57.pdf
Parties
Judgment Creditor: Teddi Alison Ross; Judgment Debtor: Bryan Keith Ross; Provisional Trustee: Terrence Charles Webb Bastion
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 September 2011
Procedural Posture
Insolvency/bankruptcy / Hearing on Part 5 Proposal Approval and Adjudication Application
Outcome
Part 5 creditors' proposal dismissed; judgment debtor adjudicated bankrupt
Legal Topics
Part 5 Creditors' Proposal, S333 Approval, S13 Adjudication, S37 Discretion, Enforcement of Foreign Maintenance Judgment
Insolvency Law Bankruptcy Family Law Civil Procedure Part 5 Creditors' Proposal S333 Approval S13 Adjudication S37 Discretion +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teddi Alison Ross

Judgment Creditor

Bryan Keith Ross

Judgment Debtor

Terrence Charles Webb Bastion

Provisional Trustee

Procedural Posture

Insolvency/bankruptcy / Hearing on Part 5 Proposal Approval and Adjudication Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 5 creditors' proposal should be approved under s333(3) of the Insolvency Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the proposal is reasonable or calculated to benefit the general body of creditors (s333(3)(b))
  3. 3 Whether it is expedient to approve the proposal (s333(3)(c))

Ratio Decidendi

The proposal was dismissed under s333(3)(b) and (c) because it was materially deficient and misleading (failure to disclose trust-owned property and associated offsets, treating secured mortgage as unsecured, no provision for contribution from the debtor's substantial future income, and proposal structured to primarily benefit family trusts and the bank rather than the general body of creditors), and it was not expedient to approve it; having rejected the proposal the Court adjudicated the debtor bankrupt under s13 because the statutory thresholds were met and s37 discretionary grounds to refuse adjudication were not established.

Court Disposition

Part 5 creditors' proposal dismissed; judgment debtor adjudicated bankrupt

Orders

  • Judgment debtor Bryan Keith Ross adjudicated bankrupt
  • Costs to judgment creditor Teddi Alison Ross on a category 2B basis plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar