Miao and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by the Applicant for a review of the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy's decision not to review a trustee's objection to the Applicant's discharge from bankruptcy. The Applicant had become bankrupt in July 2014, and the trustee had filed a notice of objection to discharge on grounds including failure to disclose income particulars, failure to provide requested information about income and property, and failure to deliver a passport. The Applicant subsequently requested a review of the trustee's objection, but the Inspector-General refused to conduct this review.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Inspector-General's refusal to review the trustee's decision was correct. This involved determining whether the Applicant had valid grounds to seek a review of the trustee's objection, and consequently, whether the Inspector-General erred in declining to undertake that review. The Tribunal was not being asked to review the trustee's original objection itself, but rather the decision of the Inspector-General not to review that objection.

The Tribunal affirmed the Inspector-General's decision, finding that the Applicant's application for review was misconceived. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had applied for a review of the Inspector-General's decision *not* to review the trustee's objection, rather than seeking a review of the trustee's objection itself. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the trustee had subsequently ceased to object to the Applicant's discharge on the ground of failure to deliver a passport, rendering the initial grounds for objection moot in that regard. The Tribunal's focus remained on the procedural step of reviewing the Inspector-General's refusal to conduct a review.