Dransfield v Official Assignee

[2015] NZHC 662

IN THE HIGH COURTOF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-1113

CIV-2014-404-1115 [2015] NZHC 662

UNDER	the Insolvency Act 2006
IN THE MATTER OF	applications for discharge from bankruptcy by PETAH JACQUELINE DRANSFIELD and BENJAMIN JOHN EVERETT
BETWEEN	PETAH JACQUELINE DRANSFIELD AND BENJAMIN JOHN EVERETT Applicants
AND	OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE Respondent

CIV-2014-404-2853

UNDER  the Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE MATTER OF       an application under Part 5 subpart 2 by JACQUELINE FRANCES EVERETT Applicant

Hearing:	1 April 2015 at 10:00am
Appearances:	N A Farrands for PJ Dransfield, BJ Everett and JF Everett C T Jones for the Official Assignee
Judgment:	1 April 2015

ORAL JUDGMENT (No.2) OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

Solicitors:

Morrison Kent (NA Farrands) Auckland, for Applicants

Insolvency and Trustee Service (CT Jones) Auckland, for Official Assignee

DRANSFIELD AND EVERETT v OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE [2015] NZHC 662 [1 April 2015].

[1]      This judgment follows my decision of 4 March 2015.1

[2]      Petah Jacqueline Dransfield  and  Benjamin John Everett have applied for early  discharge  from  their  bankruptcies.    There  is  an  application  to  approve  a proposal for Jacqueline Frances Everett, their mother, under Part 5 subpart 2 of the Insolvency Act 2006.   In my decision of 4 March 2015, I indicated approval in principle to all three matters, but adjourned the applications until today to allow creditors to be paid out in accordance with the family’s proposal.

[3]      Mr  Horton,  the  trustee  under  Mrs  Everett’s  proposal,  has  filed  a  report showing that he has made these payments from $130,000 he received from Mr Kyle Dransfield.  First, he has paid $14,034 to the Official Assignee to cover the Official Assignee’s costs in the two bankruptcies.  Second, he has paid $7,463 to the creditors who applied for Petah Dransfield and Benjamin Everett to be made bankrupt.  Third, he has held back $8,503 to cover his own costs and to finalise matters.  And last, he has paid $100,000 pro rata to creditors who have proved in the bankruptcies and have also made claims under Mrs Everett’s proposal.  As indicated in my judgment of 4 March 2015, each creditor has been treated as having only one claim, even if more than one member of the family is a debtor of that creditor.  I am satisfied that the payments Mr Horton has made are all in accordance with my judgment of

4 March 2015.

[4]      In addition, this morning Mr Farrands has tendered an affidavit showing that a payment was made towards a child support liability of Mr Everett on 25 February

2015.  That child support liability would have survived Mr Everett’s discharge from bankruptcy.   It was appropriate that that be paid at the same time as all his other creditors were being addressed.   Given that that liability would have survived his discharge from bankruptcy, I accept that that would need to be paid in full as against

other creditors receiving only part-payment.

1      Official Assignee v Dransfield Everett and Everett [2015] NZHC 391.

[5]      Overall, I am satisfied that creditors have been adequately identified.  For the reasons I gave in my decision of 4 March 2015, the basis for an early discharge from bankruptcy has been made out in the case of Petah Dransfield and Benjamin Everett and there are good grounds for approving the proposal.  Accordingly, I make orders discharging Petah Jacqueline Dransfield and Benjamin John Everett from their bankruptcies  with  effect  from  10:12  am  on  1 April  2015.    The  discharges  are unconditional.

[6]      I also approve the proposal for Jacqueline Frances Everett.  Mr Farrands has raised a drafting point.   The proposal initially referred to her proposal being conditional on proposals by Benjamin Everett and Petah Dransfield being approved. They abandoned their proposals and applied for early discharge from bankruptcy instead.  The proposal needs to be amended to reflect that.  That is not a change in substance but only goes to correctly describing the state of affairs.  It is within the court’s power of amendment under s 333(6) of the Insolvency Act.  The proposal is

approved with that amendment.

Associate Judge R M Bell