Schiffer v Pattison

In Schiffer v Pattison, the applicant, Mr H D Schiffer, appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirming a notice of objection to discharge his bankruptcy. The trustee had objected to the discharge on the grounds that Mr Schiffer had failed to pay a contribution assessment and disclose income or assets as required by the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). Mr Schiffer disputed the trustee's assessment and had applied for a review by the Inspector-General, which was ultimately unsuccessful. The AAT affirmed the trustee's first objection notice but also considered an issue concerning the sale of AMP shares, which formed the basis of the second objection notice. Mr Schiffer contended that the second objection notice was ineffective and that the AAT should not have considered the AMP shares issue.

The legal issues before the court were whether the second objection notice was valid and whether the AAT should have considered the AMP shares issue. The court found that the second objection notice provided an additional ground of objection and was not superseded by the first objection notice. However, the court also found that the AAT's consideration of the AMP shares issue was potentially problematic, as it arose after the decision under review and was not before the AAT. The court held that Mr Schiffer's claims were capable of raising questions of law on tenable grounds and therefore granted leave to amend the notice of appeal. The court directed that the applicant file and serve a draft of the proposed amended notice of appeal by a specified date and adjourned the further hearing of the notice of motion to allow for this.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that alternate grounds of objection can operate independently of each other and that the AAT is entitled to consider relevant issues even if they arise after the decision under review. However, the court also recognised that there may be circumstances in which the AAT is required to grant an adjournment or advise a party of the possibility of seeking one. The court's outcome was that Mr Schiffer was granted leave to amend his notice of appeal and that the further hearing of the notice of motion would be adjourned to allow for this. The court also noted that costs were reserved.