Elia and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy

This matter concerned an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy's refusal to review an income assessment of a trustee in bankruptcy. The applicant sought to challenge the Inspector-General's decision, arguing that the Inspector-General had not been in a sufficiently informed position to make a proper assessment.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether there were sufficient grounds to justify a review of the Trustee's decision, particularly in light of the information provided by the applicant. This involved considering the applicant's explanation for significant payments received into his bank account, the nature of those payments, and the supporting evidence, including witness testimony and documentary records. The Tribunal also considered the respondent's contention that section 139ZA(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) did not impose a burden of proof on the applicant, but that any decision to justify a review must be based on relevant and probative evidence.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant conceded receiving $413,261.10 into his bank account between February 2017 and September 2019, his explanation for the source and purpose of these funds was not sufficiently substantiated. Although the applicant claimed the funds were from "ICS" and held on trust for specific expenses, his evidence regarding payments made by his daughter on behalf of another individual was contradicted by that individual's testimony. The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that he received the funds, but found his explanation for their nature and purpose lacked the necessary corroboration from supporting witnesses or documentary evidence to justify a review of the Trustee's decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that sufficient grounds existed to justify a review of the Trustee's decision based on the evidence presented. The decision under review was therefore affirmed.