Henshaw v ANZ National Bank Limited

In the case of Henshaw v ANZ National Bank Limited, the insolvent, Mr Henshaw, applied to the High Court for approval of a proposal under the Insolvency Act 2006. The proposal was to be voted on by creditors at a meeting convened by the provisional trustee, Ms Liggins. The majority of creditors accepted the proposal, but some issues arose regarding the service of notice of the meeting and the application for approval. The court had to decide whether the email communication was sufficient to meet the statutory requirements for notice and if the proposal was reasonable and in the best interest of the creditors.

The court found that while there was an argument for interpreting "posting" to include email, this was potentially academic because the creditors who responded to the email had effectively confirmed receipt of the proposal. However, the court had more concerns about the service of notice of the hearing of the application. The notice of hearing was not sent to one secured creditor, and the court doubted that the creditors who voted in favour of the proposal had expressly agreed to accept service by email. The court also found errors in the trustee's report and required the trustee to address them before proceeding with the application.

The court adjourned the application to allow the trustee to address the issues of service and to correct the report. The court indicated that, based on the information available, it did not see any reason to refuse approval of the proposal, but it would need to await clarification of the issues and the correction of the report. The court set a date for a telephone conference to discuss the application further.

In summary, the court found that the email communication was potentially sufficient for some purposes, but it had concerns about the service of notice of the hearing of the application. The court also found errors in the trustee's report and required the trustee to address them. The application was adjourned to allow the trustee to address the issues of service and to correct the report. The court indicated that it did not see any reason to refuse approval of the proposal, but it would need to await clarification of the issues and the correction of the report.