18 Mar 2019
Because the 9 March 2016 will was effectively a copy of the 18 February 2016 will with only a minor formal defect, beneficiaries consented, and the irregularity (will not read to a blind testator) did not undermine the will's reliability, probate in solemn form should be granted.
16 Jul 2018
For Part 14 compromises creditors are classed by similarity of their legal rights and by how the proposed compromise affects those rights; however where inclusion of insiders and structurally preferential treatment of small creditors, together with material non-disclosure, amount to material irregularity and/or unfair prejudice under s 232(3)(b) and (c), the court may relieve affected creditors by declaring they are not bound by the compromise; applying these principles the respondents were entitled to relief.
24 Aug 2017
The Court held that under Part 14 classes must be determined by reference to both legal rights and competing economic interests where necessary; the insider creditors should have been placed in a separate class, Callaghan (a disputed creditor) should have been separate or excluded, and material non-disclosure occurred; those defects rendered the compromise unfairly prejudicial under s232(3)(c), warranting setting aside of the compromise and dismissal of the appeal.
16 Jul 2007
The Court has authority and duty in s 232 proceedings to determine whether a party who voted was in fact a creditor; Smartships was not a creditor because the asserted liability arose from an unenforceable oral guarantee and documentation showed the debt related to Saba, not IMS; counting Smartships' vote was a material irregularity and/or made the compromise unfairly prejudicial under s 232(3), therefore Polperro is not bound by the compromise and an order to that effect should be made.