The Court held that an appeal under r 75-100(4) of the IPR from a liquidator's decision to admit proofs of debt for $1 for voting purposes is a hearing de novo, following Tanning Research and the analysis of Finkelstein J in Bacnet, meaning the Court considers the evidence afresh (including new evidence) without requiring demonstration of error. However, the Court acknowledged the question remains unsettled in the absence of intermediate appellate authority and also considered the alternative strict appeal approach. On the de novo approach, all three related party loan claims were established (two in full, one in part at $1,470,545 rather than $1.5 million); on the strict appeal approach, the liquidator erred in relation to two claims where the debts were liquidated and precisely stated such that r 75-85(4) was not enlivened, but did not err in relation to the third where insufficient material explained the discrepancy between the named payer and the claimed creditor. On either approach the replacement resolution would have passed, and the Court ordered the liquidator's removal rather than remitting the matter for a further creditors' meeting.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.