where plaintiff brought a proceeding against the first defendant for alleged building defects
Quick Take
1Where a proof of debt for voting purposes at a creditors' meeting is supported only by ballpark cost estimates from a person without specialised costing experience, provided without supporting reasoning or methodology, those figures cannot be given weight and a just estimate of the claim under IPRC s 75-85(4) may properly be the nominal amount of $1.
2On an appeal under IPRC s 75-100(4), which proceeds as a hearing de novo, the burden lies on the party challenging the administrator's determination to establish, on the balance of probabilities, what amount represents a just estimate, having regard to the necessarily summary nature of the administrator's task and the factual material furnished.
3The potential existence of unquantified and uninvestigated claims against directors (such as insolvent trading or unreasonable director-related transactions) does not establish that a DOCA constitutes an abuse of Part 5.3A or should be terminated under s 445D(1)(g), particularly where there is no evidence of funding to pursue such claims in a liquidation and the administrator's preliminary investigations have not identified viable claims.
