Nasr v Dixon (Trustee), in the matter of Nasr (Bankrupt)

Nasr, a bankrupt, applied to the court seeking orders to compel joint trustees in bankruptcy to consent to Nasr's travel to Lebanon. The trustees opposed Nasr's travel, citing concerns over the potential misuse of travel funds and Nasr's ability to return to Australia. The case before the court was whether the trustees should be directed to consent to Nasr's travel, and if so, under what terms and conditions.

The court was required to determine whether the trustees' refusal to consent to Nasr's travel was justified and whether it was in the best interest of the creditors for Nasr to be allowed to travel. The court considered the balance between the trustees' duty to protect the creditors' interests and Nasr's personal circumstances, including the potential for a family emergency. The court also examined the trustees' reasons for opposing the travel and the evidence presented regarding the potential risks and benefits of allowing Nasr to travel.

The court found that the trustees' refusal to consent to Nasr's travel was not justified as there was no evidence to support the trustees' concerns about Nasr misusing travel funds or failing to return to Australia. The court emphasised the importance of the trustees considering Nasr's personal circumstances and the potential benefits of allowing the travel, such as attending to a family emergency. The court ordered that the trustees provide written consent to Nasr's travel, subject to the condition that Nasr returns to Australia by no later than 9 August 2018. The court also granted each party the liberty to apply for further orders on 24 hours' notice and reserved costs.