Matias v ASB Bank Limited
[2025] NZHC 3291
•31 October 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE
CIV-2025-404-1554
[2025] NZHC 3291
UNDER the Insolvency Act 2006 IN THE MATTER
of the Proposal of JASON ISRAEL MATIAS
BETWEEN
JASON ISRAEL MATIAS
Insolvent
AND
ASB BANK LIMITED
Creditor
CREDIT CORP NEW ZEALAND PTY LIMITED
Creditor
HARMONEY SERVICES LIMITED
CreditorMONEY SWEET SPOT LIMITED
CreditorNEW ZEALAND FINANCE LIMITED t/a GRABALOAN
Creditor
Hearing: 3 October 2025 Counsel:
H Jang and YSBV Yang for the Trustee, Christine Liggins
Judgment:
31 October 2025
JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SUSSOCK
(Reasons)
This judgment was delivered by me on 31 October 2025 at 3.30 pm
pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Auckland
MATIAS v ASB BANK LTD [2025] NZHC 3291 [31 October 2025]
Introduction
[1] Christine Liggins sought orders as Trustee for the Court to approve the proposal of Jason Israel Matias, dated 16 May 2025 (Proposal). Applying to the Court for approval is the final stage in the process allowing an insolvent to avoid bankruptcy by making a proposal to creditors for the payment or satisfaction of the insolvent’s debts.1
[2] Mr Matias has five unsecured creditors owed $71,813.13 but no secured or preferential creditors.
[3]Through the Proposal, Mr Matias will repay over four years approximately
97.5 cents in the dollar to his creditors, less the Trustee’s fees and expenses as set out in the Proposal.
[4] When the matter was called on 3 October 2025, there was no appearance on behalf of any creditor or otherwise objecting to the Proposal.
[5] Having heard from counsel for the Trustee, I approved the Proposal and now set out my reasons for doing so.
Background to the Proposal
[6] The insolvent, Mr Matias, is based in Auckland and is a digital marketing specialist. In his statement of affairs, Mr Matias deposes that he is struggling to manage as a result of the rising cost of living coupled with recent family emergencies putting a tremendous strain on his finances. Mr Matias explains that despite his best efforts to stay on top of his payments it has become increasingly difficult to meet his financial obligations. With the Proposal, Mr Matias says he will find the necessary relief to regain control of his financial situation.
[7] Mr Matias sought the assistance of Debtfix, a debt management entity, to resolve his debt situation and nominated Ms Liggins, the director of Debtfix and a licensed insolvency practitioner, to be his trustee.
1 Section 326, and as contained in sub-pt 2 of pt 5 of the Insolvency Act.
[8] The Proposal was filed together with a statement of affairs and affidavit of Mr Matias on 3 June 2025.
Under the Proposal, Mr Matias will:
(a)make weekly payments of $700 per fortnight for four years (104 payments) to the Trustee to cover all proven debts filed with the Trustee; and
(b)not enter into any further personal borrowing or seek an increase to existing borrowing during the term of the Proposal.
[10] The Proposal provides that the fees and the expenses of the Trustee will be paid as follows:
(a)$1,000 in expenses;
(b)20 per cent of the first $3,000;
(c)10 per cent of the following $7,000; and
(d)5 per cent in excess of $10,000.
Approval by the Court
[11] Section 333 of the Insolvency Act 2006 provides for the Court’s approval of proposals:
Court must approve Proposal
(1)After the proposal has been accepted by the creditors, the trustee must, as soon as practicable,—
(a)apply to the court for approval of the proposal; and
(b)send notice of the hearing of the application in the prescribed form to the insolvent and to each known creditor.
(2)The court must, before approving a proposal, hear any objection that is made by or on behalf of a creditor.
(3)The court may refuse to approve the proposal if it considers that—
(a)the provisions of this subpart have not been complied with; or
(b)the terms of the proposal are not reasonable or are not calculated to benefit the general body of creditors; or
(c)for any reason it is not expedient that the proposal be approved.
(4)The court must not approve a proposal if it does not provide for the payment, before any other debts are paid, of—
(a)those debts that would have priority under this Act if the insolvent was adjudicated bankrupt; and
(b)the trustee’s fees and expenses that are properly incurred by the trustee in respect of the proposal; and
(c)costs incurred by a person other than the insolvent in organising and conducting a meeting of creditors for the purpose of voting on a proposal.
(5)Subsection (4)(a) does not apply to the extent that a creditor waives the priority that the debt of that person would otherwise have had.
(6)When it approves the proposal, the court may correct any formal or accidental error or omission, but must not alter the substance of the proposal.
[12] From the use of the words “may” and “must” in ss 333(3) and (4), the Court retains a discretion to refuse to approve a Proposal in the circumstances set out in s 333(3), whereas the Court’s refusal is mandatory in the circumstances set out in s 333(4).
Have the requirements of sub-pt 2 been complied with?
[13] The first discretionary requirement, s 333(3)(a), is to consider whether the requirements of subpart 2 of the Insolvency Act have been complied with.
[14] A report has been filed by the Trustee, Ms Liggins, dated 1 August 2025, setting out the steps taken in respect of the Proposal.
[15] The first step in seeking the Court’s approval is for a proposal to be filed satisfying the requirements of s 327 of the Insolvency Act 2006. This includes nominating a trustee for collection and distribution of instalments paid. This person is the provisional trustee until the proposal is approved.
[16] In addition, the Proposal sets out the trustee’s fees and expenses (as set out above) as required by s 327 of the Act and Form B9 of the High Court Rules 2016. These are in accordance with reg 40 of the Insolvency (Personal Insolvency) Regulations 2007.
[17]I am satisfied that the steps in the first stage have been complied with.
[18] The second stage is for the provisional trustee to call a meeting of the insolvent’s creditors pursuant to s 330 of the Insolvency Act and for the passing of a resolution accepting the proposal by a majority of the creditors in number and three quarters in value of the creditors who vote.
[19] Ms Liggins confirms that she gave notice to all known creditors of Mr Matias on 3 June 2025 that a meeting of creditors would be held on 10 July 2025 to consider the Proposal.
[20] The trustee records that Credit Corp Financial Solutions Pty Limited t/a Wallet Wizard advised by email that they had referred the debt to their collections department, Credit Corp New Zealand Pty Limited. A copy of this email is annexed to her report. A change has therefore been made to the intituling of this application to reflect this.
[21] The meeting of creditors was held on 10 July 2025. No creditors attended in person but all five creditors voted by way of postal vote.
[22]All five creditors voted in favour of the proposal.
[23] Section 331(3) of the Act sets out the requirements for acceptance of a proposal at the creditors’ meeting, providing:
(3)The resolution accepting the proposal must be decided by a majority in number and three quarters in value of the creditors who—
(a)vote; and
(b)are personally present or are represented at the meeting by a person specified in s 332 or have voted by postal vote.
[24] The creditors’ unanimous support for the Proposal satisfies those requirements.
[25] The Trustee must then apply to the Court for approval of the Proposal and send notice of the hearing of the application in the prescribed form to the insolvent and every known creditor.
[26] An affidavit has been filed by Alisja Skelling, a debt solutions specialist employed by the Trustee, confirming that all known creditors were advised of the hearing date of the application to the Court for approval on 1 September 2025 and that all creditors acknowledged receipt of the notice, with copies annexed to the affidavit.
[27] I am therefore satisfied that the procedural requirements under sub-pt 2 of pt 5 have been complied with.
Is the Proposal reasonable under s 333(3)(b)?
[28] The second of the discretionary requirements is that the Proposal be reasonable,2 assessed objectively from the perspective of the “commercially experienced prudent creditor”.3 In this assessment, the court must exercise its independent judgment but must be influenced by the commercial judgment of the creditors.4 The assessment of the general body of creditors ought to be accepted unless there are special public interest or other commercial considerations present.5
[29] Ms Liggins records in her report that, in her opinion, Mr Matias’s assets have a total value of approximately $5,000. His debts amount to $74,670.96 and therefore considerably exceed the value of realisable assets in his possession.
[30] Ms Liggins confirms that in her view the Proposal recovers more debt than could be achieved through any alternative method, with the total amount of the payments to be made by Mr Matias under the Proposal being $72,800.
2 Insolvency Act, s 333(3)(b).
3 Kelly v Structured Finance Ltd [2009] 2 NZLR 785 (HC) at [45], approved in Magsons Hardware Ltd t/a Mitre 10 Mega v Bogiatto [2011] NZCA 378 at [29].
4 Herbert v New Zealand Guardian Trust Co Ltd [2012] NZCA 442 at [27].
5 At [27].
[31] The creditors have unanimously voted in favour of the Proposal and there are no apparent public interest or other commercial considerations that ought to prevent the assessment of the general body of creditors being accepted.6
[32] I am therefore satisfied the Proposal will result in an improved and more certain return for creditors than if Mr Matias were to be adjudicated bankrupt.
[33] I therefore consider the Proposal is reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of creditors.
Is there any reason that it is not expedient for the Proposal to be approved?
[34] The third discretionary basis is whether there is any reason why it is not expedient that the Proposal be approved.7 As Asher J explained in Kelly v Structured Finance Ltd:8
The word “expedient” is capable of a broad meaning. It can mean “practicable”, but also has the wider meaning of “suitable” or “appropriate”.
… I consider that s 333(3)(c) requires an open-ended approach, and that any attempt to focus it on a specific matter would be to impose a limitation that does not arise from the words of the subsection.
[35] The Trustee’s report sets out the current salary of Mr Matias and confirms that Debtfix works with the client on a detailed budget considering the net income and all outgoings of the insolvent to determine that there is enough of a surplus to afford the Proposal.
[36] Upon approval by the Court, Ms Liggins confirms that she will release the funds collected so far to creditors.
[37] I do not therefore consider that there is anything in the application or associated documents to suggest that it would not be expedient for the Proposal to be approved.
6 Herbert v New Zealand Guardian Trust Co Ltd, above n 4.
7 Insolvency Act, s 333(3)(c).
8 Kelly v Structured Finance Ltd, above n 3, at [53].
Section 333(4) matters
[38] In terms of s 333(4) matters, in this case there are no preferential debts, and the Proposal provides that the trustee’s fees and expenses will be paid for. The trustee organised the meeting of creditors to approve the Proposal and does not claim any separate costs. None of the matters for which the Act mandates refusal therefore prevent approval of this Proposal.
Result
[39] On 3 October 2025, for the reasons set out above, I approved the Proposal of Jason Israel Matias dated 16 May 2025 pursuant to s 333 of the Insolvency Act because, for the reasons set out above, I was satisfied that:
(a)the provisions of sub-pt 2 of pt 5 of the Act had been complied with;
(b)the terms of the Proposal are reasonable and calculated to benefit the general body of the creditors;
(c)it is expedient that the Proposal be approved; and
(d)there are no grounds under s 333(4) of the Act which mandate against approval of the Proposal.
Associate Judge Sussock
0
0
1