Trkulja v Administrative Appeals Tribunal

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Trkulja v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2006] FCA 152

BANKRUPTCY – appeal from decision of AAT – income contribution assessment – whether AAT took into account irrelevant considerations – objection to discharge pursuant to s 149D(1)(d) – whether AAT relied upon hearsay evidence

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)

Neal v Secretary, Department ofTransport (1980) 29 ALR 350 – cited
Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1996) 162 CLR 24 – applied
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280 – applied

MICHAEL TRKULJA v ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND INSPECTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY
VID 987 OF 2005

MERKEL J
24 FEBRUARY 2006
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 987 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL TRKULJA
APPLICANT

AND:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

INSPECTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MERKEL J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 FEBRUARY 2006

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The appellant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the appeal.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 987 OF 2005

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL TRKULJA
APPLICANT

AND:

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

INSPECTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MERKEL J
DATE:	24 FEBRUARY 2006
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Background

1. The appellant in this matter, Mr Trkulja, appeals against certain findings made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’) in a decision made on 26 July 2005. 

2. The appellant was made bankrupt on 4 September 2000 pursuant to a debtor’s petition. Mr Morton, who is not a party to these proceedings, was appointed trustee (‘the trustee’). The trustee, by a notice dated 24 January 2003, objected to the discharge of Mr Trkulja from bankruptcy pursuant to ss 149D(1)(d), 149D(1)(n) and 149(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (‘the Act’). In a further notice dated 3 September 2003, the trustee objected to the discharge of Mr Trkulja from bankruptcy pursuant to ss 149D(1)(c), 149D(1)(b) and 149D(1)(f) of the Act. The trustee also issued an income contribution assessment in relation to the appellant for the period 4 September 2000 to 3 September 2001.

3. The second respondent in two decisions dated 16 September 2003 and 24 October 2003 (‘the objection decisions’), affirmed the decision of the trustee to file the notices of objection.  However, having reviewed the income contribution assessment of the trustee, the second respondent issued a fresh income contribution assessment (‘the income contribution decision’).

4. The AAT varied the objection decisions of the second respondent by setting aside those parts of the second respondent’s decisions which affirmed the grounds of objection to discharge under ss 149D(1)(n), 149(1)(b) and 149(1)(f). In all other respects, the second respondent’s decisions, including the income contribution decision, were affirmed by the AAT.

5. The appellant, who was not legally represented, alleged that there were two errors of law by the AAT, namely:

   (a)the AAT’s finding that the appellant’s ‘income and contribution could be assessed under section 139ZD(b)…