BANK OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ORS V PG SOUTHAM HC AK CIV-2010-404-1509
The court approved the proposal because Sub‑Part 2 procedural requirements were met, a substantial majority of creditors voted in favour, the proposal is reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of creditors (providing a materially better recovery than bankruptcy), and the s333(4) requirements regarding priority payments and costs have been satisfied; accordingly it is expedient to approve under s333.
- Citation
- openlaw-e19b75a9_d05a_4f37_b349_1a1dfd9ea45e.pdf
- Parties
- Insolvent: Paul Grant Southam; Provisional Trustee: Christine Liggins; Creditor: Bank of New Zealand Limited; Creditor: Chesters Plumbing & Bathroom Centre Limited; Creditor: Nick Letica Building Supplies Limited; Creditor: Fletcher Distribution Limited; Creditor: Reece New Zealand Limited; Creditor: Fleet Card NZ Limited; Creditor: Fleetpartners NZ Trustee Limited; Creditor: GE Finance and Insurance
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 19 May 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Insolvency Act 2006 Proposal Approval / Application Under S333 for Court Approval Following Creditors' Meeting
- Outcome
- Application granted; creditors' proposal approved.
- Legal Topics
- Proposal Approval Under S333, Creditors' Meeting Voting, Reasonableness Test for Proposals, Priority Payments and Trustee Fees
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Paul Grant Southam
Insolvent
Christine Liggins
Provisional Trustee
Bank of New Zealand Limited
Creditor
Chesters Plumbing & Bathroom Centre Limited
Creditor
Nick Letica Building Supplies Limited
Creditor
Fletcher Distribution Limited
Creditor
Reece New Zealand Limited
Creditor
Fleet Card NZ Limited
Creditor
Fleetpartners NZ Trustee Limited
Creditor
GE Finance and Insurance
Creditor
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Act 2006 Proposal Approval / Application Under S333 for Court Approval Following Creditors' Meeting
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Sub‑Part 2 procedural requirements were complied with
- 2 Whether the terms of the proposal are reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of creditors
- 3 Whether it is expedient to approve the proposal
Ratio Decidendi
The court approved the proposal because Sub‑Part 2 procedural requirements were met, a substantial majority of creditors voted in favour, the proposal is reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of creditors (providing a materially better recovery than bankruptcy), and the s333(4) requirements regarding priority payments and costs have been satisfied; accordingly it is expedient to approve under s333.
Court Disposition
Application granted; creditors' proposal approved.
Orders
- Leave granted to amend application so it is by provisional trustee Christine Liggins
- Approval given to the creditors' proposal dated 18 March 2010 pursuant to s333 Insolvency Act 2006
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment