Weston and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy

This matter concerned an objection to a bankrupt's discharge, brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal by the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy. The bankrupt, referred to as the Other Party, disputed the grounds for objection, which were based on his alleged failure to provide requested information about his property and income, and his failure to pay a contribution assessed under section 139ZG of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth).

The Tribunal was required to determine whether there was sufficient evidence to support the existence of the special grounds for objection specified by the Inspector-General. Specifically, it needed to assess if the bankrupt had failed to provide written information regarding his property, income, or expected income, and if he had failed to pay an amount he was liable to pay under section 139ZG. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to consider whether the bankrupt had a reasonable excuse for any such conduct or failure.

The Tribunal found that the bankrupt's claims regarding the provision of information were contradictory and unpersuasive, noting that he had been requested to provide information over a long period and had been granted extensions for compliance, which he ultimately failed to meet. His engagement in other court proceedings and focus on property interests during the compliance period indicated a lack of prioritisation. Regarding the non-payment of contributions, the Tribunal noted that the bankrupt had received notice of his liability and had applied for a review, but there was no basis for his belief that payment was suspended during the review process. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the bankrupt had established a reasonable excuse for either the failure to provide information or the non-payment of contributions.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Inspector-General's decision to confirm the Trustee's objection to the bankrupt's discharge, as there was sufficient evidence to support both special grounds and the bankrupt had failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for his conduct.