Ruskin v American Express International (NZ) Inc

[2020] NZHC 1955

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-107

[2020] NZHC 1955

UNDER

the Insolvency Act 2006

BETWEEN

JULIE RUSKIN

Insolvent

AND

AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL (NZ) INC, ANZ BANK LIMITED, FINANCE NOW LIMITED, FLEXI CARDS LIMITED, KIWIBANK LIMITED, LATITUDE FINANCIAL SERVICES

LIMITED and WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Creditors

Hearing:	6 August 2020
Appearances:	G P Davis for Insolvent
Judgment:	6 August 2020

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 August 2020 at 3.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar 6 August 2020

RUSKIN v AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL (NZ) INC [2020] NZHC 1955 [6 August 2020]

[1]                 The insolvent, Ms Julie Ruskin, seeks approval of a proposal under pt 5 of the Insolvency Act 2006 (the Act).

[2]                 The insolvent lodged her proposal with the court at the end of February 2020. The meeting of creditors was held on 9 April 2020. Ms Christine Liggins accepted the role of provisional trustee and she took on the task of sending the proposal to creditors.

[3]                 A meeting of creditors was scheduled for 9 April 2020. Ms Liggins’ trustee report confirms that all eight creditors voted in favour of the proposal.

[4]                 While the proposal was emailed to the creditors, the fact each creditor returned their postal vote approving the proposal, confirms they received the proposal.

[5]                 With the proposal having been approved at the meeting, Ms Ruskin applies to the court for approval of the proposal under s 333 of the Act.

[6]                 Evidence confirms each of the creditors received notice of this application. Given all the creditors voted in favour of the proposal, it is perhaps not surprising that no objection to the application for approval has been filed.

[7]                 The application itself, aims to return to the creditors almost all of their indebtedness, with payments to be made over a period of three years by Ms Ruskin from her employment, which she has held for a substantial period.

[8]                 I find that each of the requirements of s 333(3) of the Act have been complied with.

[9]                 I have no difficulty concluding the proposal is an expedient means by which Ms Ruskin can deal with her debts.

[10]              At the end of the day, all of the creditors have approved the proposal and in those circumstances there would have to be something out of the ordinary for the court to withhold its approval. Nothing about the proposal suggests it should not be approved.

Order

[11]              Accordingly, there is an order under pt 5, subpt 2 of the Insolvency Act 2006 approving the proposal of Julie Ruskin made on 18 February 2020.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:
Webster Malcolm Law, Warkworth

Copy to counsel:
G P Davis, Barrister, Christchurch