STEPHEN JOHN EDWARD PACK v ULTRA PROJECTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZHC 1659

STEPHEN JOHN EDWARD PACK v ULTRA PROJECTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2015] NZHC 1659

Although the Court erred in inferring an undisclosed asset because advances to the family trust had been forgiven, that error did not justify recalling the judgment; independent findings concerning the net value of debts and the inexpediency of approving the proposal were sufficient to uphold the refusal, and the objector's success justified the costs award on the 2B basis.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 1659
Parties
Insolvent/applicant: Stephen John Edward Pack; Objector: Ultra Projects Limited (In Liquidation)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Proposal Under Part 5 Insolvency Act 2009 / Application for Approval of Proposal; Judgment Issued and Subsequent Costs Reconsideration Memorandum
Outcome
Judgment of 6 May 2015 upheld; proposal not approved; costs award against Mr Pack maintained on 2B basis; no recall of judgment.
Legal Topics
Proposal Approval Under Part 5, Disclosure Obligations in Insolvency Proposals, Costs Awards (2 B Scale), Recall of Judgment Vs Appeal
Insolvency Law Civil Procedure Costs Law Proposal Approval Under Part 5 Disclosure Obligations in Insolvency Proposals Costs Awards (2 B Scale) Recall of Judgment Vs Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen John Edward Pack

Insolvent/applicant

Ultra Projects Limited (In Liquidation)

Objector

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Proposal Under Part 5 Insolvency Act 2009 / Application for Approval of Proposal; Judgment Issued and Subsequent Costs Reconsideration Memorandum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether newly disclosed evidence (forgiveness of debt by family trust) overturns finding of undisclosed asset
  2. 2 Whether the judgment should be recalled or revisited
  3. 3 Whether the costs award against the insolvent should be reduced or set aside

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Court erred in inferring an undisclosed asset because advances to the family trust had been forgiven, that error did not justify recalling the judgment; independent findings concerning the net value of debts and the inexpediency of approving the proposal were sufficient to uphold the refusal, and the objector's success justified the costs award on the 2B basis.

Court Disposition

Judgment of 6 May 2015 upheld; proposal not approved; costs award against Mr Pack maintained on 2B basis; no recall of judgment.

Orders

  • Judgment dated 6 May 2015 stands and is not recalled
  • Proposal by Stephen John Edward Pack is declined