15 Mar 2019
Clause 5, purporting to release the insolvent's wife from liability, was a deliberate substantive element of the proposal and not a formal or accidental error; s333(6) does not permit alteration of the substance of a proposal, therefore the Court could not amend the proposal and must refuse approval; the insolvent may present a fresh compliant proposal.
3 Oct 2013
The Court approved the proposal because statutory procedures were complied with, the requisite majorities of creditors accepted the proposal, the trustee reported it was advantageous to creditors relative to bankruptcy, and despite modest returns and uncertainty about performance there was a reasonable prospect of payment and mechanisms to return the proposal to Court if default occurred.
28 Mar 2011
The adjudication was properly made; s 328(3) does not freeze creditor claims at the date of the initial filing such that an earlier larger figure could be voted when the debt had been reduced before adjudication; Westpac's vote was properly valued at the amount provable at the time and no procedural defect or material non-disclosure justified annulment under s 309(1)(a).
23 Sept 2010
Applying r3.16 the court held that the principle of open justice and the orderly and fair administration of justice outweighed Ms Wang's claimed confidentiality and privacy interests given the relevance of the files to the OIO's statutory decision-making, the prior public release of the insolvency proposal to the New Zealand Herald, and the OIO's legitimate need to consider the material; accordingly permission to inspect the specified Court files was granted.
11 May 2010
The debtor's proposal, while an admission of insolvency, did not amount to a notification that he had suspended or was about to suspend payment of his debts under s22; the necessary clear intimation of suspension (per Cotton LJ) was absent, so the creditor failed to prove an act of bankruptcy and the application was dismissed.
17 Nov 2008
Court refused approval because there were serious procedural breaches of Subpart 2 (failure to serve known/secured creditors; material discrepancy between the filed proposal and documents actually considered; absence of a clear resolution setting out the final proposal), the proposal was vague and commercially unreasonable with no identifiable enforceable income stream and therefore not calculated to benefit the general body of creditors, and approval was not expedient in the public interest; accordingly the Court exercised its s 333(3) discretion to refuse approval and adjudicated the debtor…