MAHARAJ v KISHORE [2019] NZHC 108

MAHARAJ v KISHORE [2019] NZHC 108

The Court refused to approve the proposal because the terms were unacceptably vague and unsupported on funding such that the proposal was unreasonable under s 333(3)(b), and because it was inexpedient to approve under s 333(3)(c) given evidence the insolvent had traded while insolvent for many years and relied on a very large, long‑running secured claim by Westminster (much comprising accrued penalty interest) which created a public interest risk requiring supervisory scrutiny via bankruptcy; accordingly the Court declined to exercise its discretion to approve the proposal.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 108
Parties
Provisional Trustee / Applicant: Peter James Broad; Insolvent / Proponent: Ashok Maharaj; Opposing Creditor / Respondent: Nick Nand Kishore
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Insolvency Act Proposal Approval / Application to Court for Approval of Proposal Under S 333
Outcome
Application to approve proposal refused
Legal Topics
Proposal Approval, Creditor Voting, Limitation, Trading While Insolvent, Public Interest, Secured Debt, Regulation 32 Appeal
Insolvency Law Bankruptcy Commercial Law Civil Procedure Proposal Approval Creditor Voting Limitation Trading While Insolvent +3 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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter James Broad

Provisional Trustee / Applicant

Ashok Maharaj

Insolvent / Proponent

Nick Nand Kishore

Opposing Creditor / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Insolvency Act Proposal Approval / Application to Court for Approval of Proposal Under S 333

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was compliance with subpart 2 of Part 5 of the Insolvency Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the proposal is reasonable
  3. 3 Whether it is expedient in the public interest to approve the proposal

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to approve the proposal because the terms were unacceptably vague and unsupported on funding such that the proposal was unreasonable under s 333(3)(b), and because it was inexpedient to approve under s 333(3)(c) given evidence the insolvent had traded while insolvent for many years and relied on a very large, long‑running secured claim by Westminster (much comprising accrued penalty interest) which created a public interest risk requiring supervisory scrutiny via bankruptcy; accordingly the Court declined to exercise its discretion to approve the proposal.

Court Disposition

Application to approve proposal refused

Orders

  • The application for an order approving the proposal is refused.
  • Preliminary view that costs should be awarded to Mr Kishore assessed on a 2B basis.