Hooper v Lock

This appeal concerns the rejection of proof of debt forms by the company liquidators, the plaintiffs' burden of proving the asserted indebtedness, and the consequences of lodging proof of debt forms with the administrators rather than liquidators. The plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Hooper, sought to establish their claims against the company in liquidation and appeal against the liquidators' rejection of their proofs of debt. The primary source of evidence in the appeals was the documentary evidence, with the affidavits of the parties providing additional context.

The key legal issues in this case were whether the liquidators satisfied the requirements of regulation 5.6.47 of the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) when rejecting the plaintiffs' proofs of debt without requiring that a formal proof of debt be lodged, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to appeal against the rejection of the proofs of debt as formal proofs of debt. The court considered the relevant provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth), as well as the onus of proof for the claimants.

The court found that the liquidators were justified in rejecting the proofs of debt, as the plaintiffs had failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish their claims. The court emphasised that the primary source of evidence should be contemporaneous documents, and that the affidavit evidence of the Hoopers was largely conclusionary and objected to on those grounds. The court further found that the plaintiffs' claims were not supported by the documentary evidence provided, and that the liquidators were justified in rejecting the proofs of debt.

The appeals were dismissed, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs of the defendants. The court held that the liquidators had satisfied the requirements of regulation 5.6.47 when rejecting the proofs of debt, and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to appeal against the rejection of the proofs of debt as formal proofs of debt. The court found that the plaintiffs had failed to discharge their onus of proof in establishing their claims, and that the liquidators were justified in rejecting the proofs of debt.