The High Court has disallowed two proofs of debt submitted by the Collector-General in Henry Dixon’s bankruptcy, finding that the original form omitted an election about security and that the amended claim was accepted without giving Dixon a reasonable opportunity to respond.
Mr Justice Humphreys made the order under section 79 of the Bankruptcy Act 1988 on 21 October 2021. The order addresses the Official Assignee’s admission of the two forms. It does not determine the validity or amount of any further proof of debt, and leaves either party free to raise other issues if another proof is submitted.
Dixon was adjudicated bankrupt in June 2018 on a petition based on a 2009 judgment of €82,821.44. The Collector-General’s original proof, filed in September 2019 and accepted by the Official Assignee, claimed total debt of €784,501.60, including secured and unsecured amounts. The court noted that the form did not say whether the Collector-General elected to release the security or retain it outside the bankruptcy estate.
After Dixon brought a motion challenging the claim, the Collector-General submitted an amended proof in June 2021. The Official Assignee accepted it in July. The judgment records that Dixon was not given a copy or notice of the amended proof before its acceptance. The court found that a bankrupt must first be given a reasonable opportunity to dispute a proof or argue that it should be referred to the court. Where a debt is disputed, the judgment said, the Official Assignee must refer it to the court rather than admit it, provided an affidavit is filed.
The judge rejected Dixon’s separate argument that the 21-day wording printed on the original form had triggered a statutory deadline for proofs of debt. He found it was a request, not a sufficiently clear invocation of the power to impose a deadline. The rules also required an advertisement if such a deadline was imposed; there was no evidence that a formal time limit had been set.
The court therefore disallowed the original proof because it lacked the required election about security, and the amended proof because Dixon had not been given a reasonable chance to respond before it was admitted. The judgment did not rule on the further legal arguments Dixon wished to make about the Collector-General’s claim.