Proof of debt rejected for non-production of original receipts and inadequate explanation for loss of supporting evidence.

A claim for proof of debt was rejected because the applicant failed to produce the original receipts relied on, and the explanation for their loss was not consistently disclosed before the Official Liquidator. The alleged police complaint and supporting particulars were also not produced or furnished. On that factual basis, the High Court found no denial of opportunity to lead secondary evidence and upheld the rejection of the claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the rejection of the applicant's claim for proof of debt could be faulted for want of original receipts and for alleged denial of an opportunity to lead secondary evidence.

Analysis: The applicant had been called upon to produce evidence in support of the claim. The original receipts relied upon in the proof of debt were not produced, and the explanation for their loss was not consistently disclosed in the material placed before the Official Liquidator. The alleged police complaint and supporting particulars were also not produced before the Court or furnished to the Official Liquidator.

Conclusion: The rejection of the claim was upheld and no interference was warranted.

---