6 Aug 2020
The court approved the proposal because the statutory requirements of s 333(3) were satisfied, the proposal is an expedient means to deal with the insolvent's debts, and all creditors unanimously approved the proposal, with no reason shown to withhold approval.
22 Apr 2015
The court approved the insolvency proposal because the procedural irregularities were not sufficient to defeat the meeting outcome (notice was treated as posted, adjournment by the chair was within power, and an absent secured creditor's electronic/text communication could validly be treated as a postal/electronic vote under s330(2)), secured creditors may vote under the personal insolvency regime, and the proposal was supported by realistic prospect of funding from the successful Fanshawe Street litigation; approval was granted subject to leave to cancel if promised payments are not delivere…
18 Apr 2012
The court awarded indemnity costs against Peter W J Paalvast because he acted vexatiously, frivolously, improperly and unnecessarily by continuing the approval application despite known facts and clearly established law (including improperly rejecting creditor votes and failing to give required notice), such conduct amounting to abuse of process and meeting the high threshold for indemnity costs under r14.6(4) and applicable case law; indemnity costs of $8,786 were ordered payable to Westpac and may be taken into account in Paalvast's bankrupt estate.
20 Jul 2011
The Court approved the proposal because statutory requirements were substantially complied with, the omission to attach claim forms was a procedural breach that did not prejudice creditors nor change the required majorities (the votes would still meet thresholds), and the proposal was reasonable, benefited the general body of creditors and was expedient; accordingly none of the s 333(3) grounds to refuse approval applied.