Sopikiotis, in the matter of Sopikiotis (Bankrupt) v Vince (Trustee)

The applicant, Ms Sopikiotis, seeks an inquiry into the conduct of the respondent, Mr Vince, the trustee of her bankrupt estate, and a stay of the bankruptcy order made against her. The dispute arose from a Victoria Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Order dated 21 April 2010, which Ms Sopikiotis contends was obtained by default in relation to an alleged debt that she does not acknowledge or accept she is liable for, and which is statute-barred. The matter was referred to the Federal Circuit Court, which made a sequestration order against Ms Sopikiotis on 5 July 2011. Ms Sopikiotis filed a further affidavit in which she alleged that Mr Vince had engaged in misconduct by way of concealment of material facts and that his actions and lack of assistance had been, and are continuing to be, detrimental to her.

The court was required to decide whether the allegations made by Ms Sopikiotis against Mr Vince were sufficient to warrant an inquiry into his conduct and a stay of the bankruptcy order. The court noted that Ms Sopikiotis's affidavit contained several allegations against Mr Vince, including that he had lodged a caveat without her knowledge or consent, had failed to provide her with information reasonably required concerning her property or affairs, and had failed to act diligently and prudently in regard of the estate. The court also noted that Ms Sopikiotis had previously sought and been refused an extension of time to make her review application of the sequestration order. The court considered whether the allegations made by Ms Sopikiotis were sufficient to establish a prima facie case for an inquiry into Mr Vince's conduct and a stay of the bankruptcy order.

The court held that the allegations made by Ms Sopikiotis were not sufficient to warrant an inquiry into Mr Vince's conduct or a stay of the bankruptcy order. The court found that Ms Sopikiotis had not provided sufficient evidence to support her allegations and that the allegations were speculative and not based on any concrete facts. The court also noted that Ms Sopikiotis had previously been refused an extension of time to make her review application of the sequestration order, which suggested that her allegations were not well-founded. The court held that the bankruptcy order should remain in place and that there was no basis for an inquiry into Mr Vince's conduct.

Ms Sopikiotis's application for an inquiry into the conduct of Mr Vince and a stay of the bankruptcy order was dismissed. The court held that the allegations made by Ms Sopikiotis were not sufficient to establish a prima facie case for an inquiry into Mr Vince's conduct or a stay of the bankruptcy order. The court found that Ms Sopikiotis had not provided sufficient evidence to support her allegations and that the allegations were speculative and not based on any concrete facts. The court also noted that Ms Sopikiotis had previously been refused an extension of time to make her review application of the sequestration order, which suggested that her allegations were not well-founded. The court held that the bankruptcy order should remain in place and that there was no basis for an inquiry into Mr Vince's conduct.