Re Robinson, M.J. & Anor Ex parte Geroff, P.I.F. v Turner

In the case of Re Robinson, M.J. & Anor Ex parte Geroff, P.I.F. v Turner, the Federal Court of Australia, General Division, dealt with an application made by Peter Geroff, the trustee and a qualified accountant, to tender a report on the financial status of the bankrupts, Michael John Robinson and Sharon Robinson, as at specific dates. The respondents, Herbert Francis Turner and Permanent Custodians Limited, objected to the report on the grounds that it constituted hearsay and that an expert opinion could not be expressed without direct evidence substantiating all the facts upon which the opinion was based. The respondents also argued that the report failed to link specific sources of information to particular facts or conclusions.

The court was required to determine whether the report was admissible as evidence under the circumstances. This involved assessing the nature of the information contained within the report, the methods by which the trustee obtained this information, and the qualifications of the trustee in forming an opinion based on this information. The court had to balance the need for the trustee to be able to express an opinion based on gathered information against the principles of evidence, particularly the hearsay rule.

The court, after reviewing the evidence and the legal precedents, found that the information relied upon by the trustee fell into three categories: information obtained in the course of administering the bankrupt's estate, information provided by creditors, and information gathered by solicitors. The court noted that such evidence has been previously accepted in similar contexts. The trustee's qualifications as an accountant, coupled with the nature of the information and documentation he received in his capacity, allowed him to form an opinion about the financial situation of the bankrupts and their solvency. The court held that the report was admissible as it provided a sufficient foundation for the opinion expressed by the trustee, without requiring formal proof of every fact or document relied upon. The court emphasised that while the report was admissible, its weight and sufficiency to establish insolvency as a matter of law or fact remained open for the respondents to challenge.

In conclusion, the court ruled that the report be admitted into evidence, allowing the trustee to present his findings regarding the financial status of the bankrupts. This decision underscores the court's recognition of the practicalities involved in the administration of bankrupt estates and the need for trustees to be able to rely on gathered information to form opinions, within the bounds of evidentiary rules.