7 Aug 2019
The court dismissed the second proposal under s333 because the applicant failed to discharge the burden of showing a material change or provide reliable, cogent evidence as to how the proposal would be funded and sustained; public interest concerns arising from the insolvent's history of trading while insolvent and inadequate proof of commercial reliability made approval inexpedient.
17 Dec 2014
The proposal was rejected because it failed to respect statutory bankruptcy priorities by lumping separate and joint (partnership) creditors contrary to ss279 and 333(4)(a), the terms were not reasonable nor calculated to benefit the general body of creditors (s333(3)(b)), the trustee could not have the court approve a substantive alteration to the proposal post-meeting (s333(6)), and public interest in preventing a reckless debtor from continuing as a free agent made bankruptcy the appropriate response (s333(3)(c) and court's discretion under Insolvency Act).