Wilson and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy

Wilson and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy [2022] AATA 730 (16 February 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2021/1586; 2021/4561
Re:Anton Wilson
APPLICANT

AndInspector-General in Bankruptcy
RESPONDENT

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal:  The Hon. Matthew Groom, Senior Member
Date of decision  16 February 2022
Date of written reasons:         12 April 2022
Place:Melbourne

The applications for reinstatement are dismissed.
...............................[SDG]...............................
The Hon. Matthew Groom, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS - application for reinstatement – applicant failed to comply with directions – applicant failed to appear at directions hearing – whether reinstatement is appropriate – application dismissed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
CASES
Jones and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy [2018] AATA 3260.
Re Manoli and Secretary, Department of Social Security [1994] AATA 130; (1994) 35 ALD
133.
Re Oates and Department of Social Security (1994) 37 ALD 241.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Hon. Matthew Groom, Senior Member
INTRODUCTION

These applications were dismissed by the Tribunal on 17 December 2021 pursuant to section 42A(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act).
By email dated 11 January 2022, the applicant sought reinstatement of the applications. The Tribunal has treated that email as an application for reinstatement pursuant to section 42A(8A) of the AAT Act. Although the applicant’s email referred to only one of the matters, application number 2021/4561, the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the reinstatement sought by the applicant was in respect of both matters.
On 16 February 2022, the Tribunal dismissed the applications for reinstatement.
Set out below are the reasons for that decision.
BACKGROUND
It is appropriate to set out the procedural background to the substantive applications in some detail.
The substantive applications brought by the applicant relate to two separate but connected matters arising out of the applicant’s bankruptcy. The applicant was made bankrupt on

6 September 2017.
Application number 2021/1586 is an application for review of a decision made by the respondent on 18 February 2021 under section 149K of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Bankruptcy Act), whereby the respondent confirmed a notice of objection to the discharge of the applicant’s bankruptcy.
Application number 2021/4561 is an application for review of a decision made by the respondent on 8 June 2021 under section 139ZA of the Bankruptcy Act, whereby the respondent refused to conduct a review of certain income contribution assessments.
The procedural history of each of the applications leading up to the hearing on 17 December 2021 is as follows:
Application number 2021/1586
(a)The applicant was initially represented by solicitors, Hunt & Hunt, and a case conference was held on 16 June 2021. Consent orders were made requiring the applicant to serve further evidence by 16 August 2021, and the conference adjourned to 24 August 2021.
(b)On 19 August 2021, the applicant’s legal representatives sought an extension of time for the provision of the further evidence to 29 September 2021 and a corresponding adjournment of the conference to a later date. The extension of time was granted, and the case conference was adjourned to 3 November 2021.
(c)The applicant failed to comply with the direction to provide the further evidence within the extended time.
(d)On 1 November 2021, Hunt & Hunt advised the Tribunal that it was no longer acting for the applicant.
(e)The matter was listed for a non-compliance hearing on 19 November 2021.
(f)On 18 November 2021, the applicant sought an adjournment of the non-compliance hearing on the basis that he was feeling unwell due to a suspected case of Covid19. No medical evidence was provided. The respondent opposed the adjournment in the absence of medical evidence.
(g)On 19 November 2021, a further email on behalf of the applicant was sent to the Tribunal stating that the applicant was suffering the effects of a suspected case of Covid19. Again, no medical evidence was provided. The Tribunal adjourned the non-compliance hearing to 26 November 2021 and requested that the applicant provide a medical certificate in respect of any condition preventing him from participating in the hearing as soon as possible.
(h)
On 25 November 2021, the applicant sought an ‘indefinite’ adjournment of the non-compliance hearing listed for 26 November 2021 on medical grounds. The respondent opposed the request. The Tribunal granted a further adjournment to

17 December 2021 but directed that the applicant produce a medical certificate evidencing any condition that prevented him from participating in both the

19 November 2021 and 26 November 2021 non-compliance hearings, and for the further period of adjournment being requested. The Tribunal also advised the applicant that it did not consider it appropriate to continue to adjourn the matter indefinitely and emphasised the importance of the applicant providing a medical certificate explaining the basis of the applicant’s inability to participate in the non-compliance hearings.
(i)On 10 December 2021, the Tribunal issued a further direction requiring the applicant to lodge medical certificates in respect of the 19 November 2021 and 26 November 2021 adjournments by 12 noon on 15 December 2021 and that any further requests for an adjournment should be accompanied by a medical certificate evidencing the basis for the request.
(j)Again, the applicant did not comply with the Tribunal’s direction.
Application number 2021/4561
(a)The matter was initially set down for a case conference on 24 August 2021, to be considered concurrently with the other matter.
(b)On 19 August 2021, in response to a Listing Notice, Hunt & Hunt advised that it had not previously been retained to act for the applicant in this matter.
(c)On 22 August 2021, the applicant sought an adjournment of the case conference until October citing resourcing, Covid19 impacts, family responsibilities and personal health issues. The respondent opposed the adjournment. The request for an adjournment was rejected by the Conference Registrar on the basis that insufficient material had been provided by the applicant to support the request and a concern in relation to the lack of progress in the matter. The Conference Registrar also advised the Applicant that this matter, which had been set down to be considered concurrently with application number 2021/1586, would be administratively separated following the advice of Hunt & Hunt that it did not represent the applicant in this proceeding. The applicant indicated that he would attend the case conference.
(d)The applicant failed to attend the case conference on 24 August 2021.
(e)The Conference Registrar then issued directions requiring the applicant to provide materials in respect of the matter by 29 September 2021.
(f)On 27 September 2021, the applicant contacted the respondent seeking its consent to an extension of time for the filing of his materials citing personal health reasons. The respondent opposed the request. The applicant undertook to provide a statutory declaration providing further details of the basis for his request for an extension of time by the next day, 28 September 2021. Again, the applicant failed to do so.
(g)The applicant also failed to comply with the Conference Registrar’s direction in relation to the provision of materials by 29 September 2021.
(h)On 4 October 2021, the respondent requested a non-compliance hearing.
(i)The matter was subsequently listed for a non-compliance hearing by the Conference Registrar to be held on 20 October 2021.
(j)By email dated 19 October 2021 the applicant advised that he would not be in a “fit state of mind” to attend the non-compliance hearing and advised that he has instructed Hunt & Hunt to represent him at the hearing. Hunt & Hunt corresponded with the Tribunal on the same day advising that it had not agreed to act in the matter and requesting that the applicant be contacted directly.
(k)On 20 October 2021, the applicant requested an adjournment of the 20 October 2021 non-compliance hearing due to the impact of the recent death of his sister and advising that he was not in a “fit state of mind”. The Tribunal granted an adjournment of the non-compliance hearing until 5 November 2021 but advised that a medical certificate be provided for any further adjournment requests.
(l)On 4 November 2021, the applicant emailed the Tribunal advising that he was unable to attend the non-compliance hearing and attached a medical certificate. The medical certificate noted that:
This is to certify that Mr Anton Wilson is unfit to attend court [and] is receiving medical treatment and [sic] for the period 2 November 2021 to
16 November 2021 inclusive.
(m)The Tribunal advised the applicant that it would grant the adjournment but that any further adjournment requests would require a more detailed explanation from the medical practitioner about the condition or ailment necessitating the request. The Tribunal also indicated to the applicant that it did not consider it appropriate to continue to provide adjournments indefinitely. On the following day, 19 November 2021, the matter was then relisted for a further non-compliance hearing to take place on 26 November 2021 on the same day as application number 2021/1586.
(n)The matters were considered by the Tribunal concurrently from that point in time and the subsequent procedural steps are the same as for application number 2021/1586.
Non-compliance hearing held on 17 December 2021
The 17 December 2021 non-compliance hearing was scheduled to proceed as a hearing by telephone.
On the morning of 17 December 2021, just prior to the commencement of the scheduled hearing, the applicant sent the Tribunal an email requesting an adjournment of the hearing and stating that he was unable to attend the hearing due to “some terrible events that have happened recently”, noting the death of a friend. The applicant then sent a further email stating that he was seeking a mental health assessment due to stress and attached a screen shot message from a Dr Habib, which stated that the doctor was unable to take on a new patient for several months but providing details of a colleague who might be able to assist.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the explanation provided by the applicant for not being able to attend the hearing was a reasonable excuse for his non-attendance. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the information produced by the applicant provided an adequate explanation for his non-attendance. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was unable to attend the hearing due to a medical reason or for any other personal reasons. The Tribunal also formed the view that given the applicant was able to engage in an email exchange with the Tribunal in the manner that he did, it was reasonable to infer that he had the capacity to participate in the hearing by telephone.
The Tribunal associate attempted to call the applicant by telephone at 9.15am and then again 9.45am to join him into the hearing but the calls were not answered.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had had prior notice of the hearing and that reasonable attempts had been made to contact the applicant and join him to the hearing. The Tribunal formed the view that the applicant had, of his own volition, decided to not make himself available for the hearing without a reasonable excuse. Given the circumstances, the Tribunal decided to proceed with the directions hearing in the absence of the applicant. After taking submissions from the respondent, the Tribunal decided to dismiss both applications for non-appearance by the applicant pursuant to section 42A(2) of the AAT Act.
Request for reinstatement
On 11 and 12 January 2022, the applicant emailed the Tribunal requesting reinstatement of application number 2021/4561 on the basis that he was unable to attend the previous hearing due to personal health issues and because he was caring for a gravely ill family member. The Tribunal understood the applicant’s request to be in relation to both matters and arranged to consider the applicant’s request for reinstatement in respect of both matters accordingly.
On 14 January 2022, the applicant sent a further email requesting reinstatement, attaching a statutory declaration dated 13 January 2022, which stated that he was unable to attend the hearing on 17 December 2021 due to “personal health issues associated with severe stress and anxiety as a result of the death of a friend” and “illness of close family members”. The respondent opposed the application for reinstatement. The Tribunal listed the matter for hearing by telephone on 8 February 2022.
ISSUES
The issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether, in all of the circumstances, it considers it appropriate to reinstate the matters in accordance with section 42A(9) of the AAT Act.
There have been a number of previous cases that have considered the approach to be adopted when applying section 42A(9).[1] The task for the Tribunal is to consider all of the relevant circumstances in making an assessment as to whether reinstatement is appropriate. In this particular case, that would include whether the applicant has provided a reasonable excuse for his non-appearance at the 17 December 2021 hearing; the prospects of the applicant succeeding in the substantive applications if reinstated; and a consideration of fairness and prejudice issues.
CONSIDERATION
[1] See for example Re Manoli and Secretary, Department of Social Security [1994] AATA 130; (1994) 35 ALD 133 and also Re Oates and Department of Social Security (1994) 37 ALD 241.
Excuse for the applicant’s failure to appear at the 17 December 2021 hearing
In his emails to the Tribunal on 11, 12 and 14 January 2022 the applicant stated that he has been dealing with a number of personal issues including “caring for a gravely ill family member”, “battling [his] own mental health issues” and that he was unable to attend the hearing on 17 December 2021 due to “personal health issues associated with severe stress and anxiety as a result of the death of a friend” and the “illness of close family members”. The applicant also indicated that he was having some resourcing issues but that he hoped to have representation in place in around March.
The initial hearing of the reinstatement applications was held on 8 February 2022. Both parties attended the hearing by telephone. The applicant told the Tribunal that he was seeking to have the matters reinstated and that the reason he had been unable to attend the 17 December 2021 non-compliance hearing was due to him suffering from severe mental health issues, stress and pressure. He told the Tribunal that he had not previously fully understood his condition and had not previously had professional help but that he had since secured such help. He told the Tribunal that he had a lot of personal issues to deal with late last year and he had not realised that he needed to provide medical certificates previously but that he had medical certificates from September, October and November 2021 in his possession and he could provide them to the Tribunal “before 5pm”. He told the Tribunal that he could provide any further information required to explain his failure to attend the 17 December hearing in the coming days and requested an adjournment of the hearing to be able to do so. When the Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that it had previously issued a number of directions requiring the provision of the medical certificates, the applicant replied that he could “quite honestly not recall that because I have been in a difficult state”. The applicant went on to tell the Tribunal that he was now in a good mental health state and felt that he was now able to provide any information required and to progress the matters in a timely way, noting that he had good support from family and friends who were able to assist. The applicant also told the Tribunal that he was hoping to secure some legal representation to assist him by the time of the next hearing.
The respondent continued to oppose the reinstatement of the matters and the adjournment. It confirmed its reliance on previous written submissions provided to the Tribunal and copied to the applicant on 16 December 2021 and 14 January 2022. In the respondent’s 14 January submissions, the respondent maintained that the applicant was aware of the hearing scheduled for 17 December and had not provided medical certificates to support his further requests for an adjournment of the matter. The respondent contended that it was reasonable to infer from the applicant’s engagement with the Tribunal prior to the hearing that he had the capacity to participate in the hearing. The respondent also contended that the information the applicant had provided to the Tribunal, in relation to both his engagement with a doctor in respect of mental health issues and the death of a friend, was vague and oblique, and not sufficient for the Tribunal to be satisfied it constituted a reasonable excuse. The respondent also referred to the substantial number of adjournments or extensions of time the applicant had previously requested and contended that, despite those requests being granted, the applicant had a pattern of failure in providing further information in support of his case or other information as directed by the Tribunal; and it noted that the applicant continued to remain in default of previous directions of the Tribunal. The respondent contended that, in all of the circumstances, it was reasonable for the Tribunal to have proceeded with the 17 December hearing as it did, and to have dismissed the applications at that hearing due to the applicant’s non-appearance. The respondent also contended that the additional references in the applicant’s subsequent emails to the Tribunal and statutory declaration in early January made references to vague and oblique personal circumstances, including that the applicant was dealing with a gravely ill family member and again a reference to battling mental health issues, but without elaborating with further details or providing any independent supporting evidence. The respondent also contended that the objectives set out in section 2A of the AAT Act, namely, to provide a mechanism of review which is ‘fair, just, informal and quick’, places upon the applicant a burden to be ready to bring their matters forward in a timely manner and that the applicant had not done so. The respondent contended that, in all of the circumstances, it was not appropriate to reinstate the matters.
In oral submissions, the respondent’s representative contended that the applicant did not address his explanation for failing to attend the 17 December hearing in any detail in either his statutory declaration of 13 January 2022 or in his oral submissions at the reinstatement application hearing. The respondent contended that, in all of the circumstances, the applicant’s explanation for his failure to attend the 17 December hearing was not credible; and that this was further compounded by his failure to provide the medical evidence as previously directed by the Tribunal, or any other medical evidence at the reinstatement application hearing itself.
In response to the applicant’s claim that he was either not aware or did not previously have capacity to address the previous directions of the Tribunal, the respondent contended that the claim was not credible given that the applicant was capable of understanding that the hearings were listed, and had the capacity to engage in the email exchange with the Tribunal prior to the hearing on 17 December, provide the further statutory declaration on 13 January 2022, provide a further email on 14 January, and appear at the reinstatement hearing. The respondent representative also contended that as the applicant’s statutory declaration of 13 January 2022 was signed in Manly, Sydney, it was reasonable to infer that the applicant was sufficiently well to be able to travel. The respondent’s representative contended that in all of the circumstances the applicant had failed to adequately explain his failure to attend the hearing on 17 December.

The Tribunal advised the parties that it was concerned that the applicant had not provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to attend the 17 December hearing. The Tribunal also noted its serious concern that the applicant had demonstrated an unwillingness to progress the matters in a timely fashion but advised that it was willing to adjourn the matter for a short period to allow the applicant one further opportunity to provide the requested materials.
The reinstatement application hearing was then adjourned to 16 February 2022. The Tribunal made directions requiring that:
1.On or before 12:00pm 15 December 2021, the Applicant must:
The Tribunal emphasised to the applicant the importance of ensuring that the directions were complied with. The applicant indicated that he understood.
The applicant subsequently failed to lodge the medical certificates as required by the direction by 5pm 8 February 2022. The applicant did, however, forward a copy of a Mental Health Assessment and Plan and a GP referral letter. The Mental Health Assessment Plan appeared to be dated 2 November 2021. However, it was signed by Dr Chris Argyropoulos against a date of 1 November 2021. The Plan included a checklist patient assessment, noted a diagnosis of depression associated with severe stress and proposed “psychological therapy”. The GP referral letter was dated 2 November 2021. The letter was from Dr Chris Argyropoulos, was addressed simply to “psychologist” and stated “thank you for seeing [the applicant] for psychological therapy under MHCP for six sessions”. No medical certificates in respect of the previous hearings were provided. There was no evidence before the Tribunal confirming any attendance by the applicant of the proposed psychological therapy sessions. The applicant also failed to lodge the further written explanation for his failure to attend the 17 December hearing together with supporting medical evidence, and a medical certificate confirming his current state of fitness to proceed with the matter in a timely manner, as the Tribunal had directed.
Early in the morning of 16 February 2022, the date of the resumed hearing, the applicant emailed the Tribunal and requested that the resumed hearing be adjourned for 14 days on the basis that he had been unable to comply with the Tribunal’s directions due to his suffering “numerous covid-19 symptoms” and isolating. No medical certificate or other medical evidence was provided in support of the adjournment request.
In response, the Tribunal advised the applicant by email that, given the history of the matter, it was not willing to adjourn the hearing prior to its scheduled commencement and that the hearing would commence as scheduled. At 9.27am the Tribunal associate called the applicant by telephone to join him into the hearing and advised that the hearing will be proceeding. The applicant responded “right, okay, well, I’m actually sort of in bed”. The associate then advised that he would join the respondent’s lawyers and the Senior Member and also that he was recording the call. The applicant responded by saying “fine”. Shortly afterwards the applicant’s line disconnected. The Tribunal associate then re-dialled the applicant. The applicant answered the call but then shortly afterwards the applicant’s line disconnected again.
At 9.40 am the applicant sent an email to the Tribunal which stated:
That’s fine.. no issues then – I understand
I’m in a poor reception area though
And have noted that you have tried to call – BUT I can’t hear you!!
Can you try again please
The Tribunal associate then called the applicant on a number of further occasions. Each time the applicant answered and then indicated that he could not hear, and the call then disconnected.
The Tribunal then decided to adjourn the hearing and make arrangements for the hearing to proceed as a Microsoft Teams hearing.
At 10.12 am the Tribunal associate emailed the applicant a document with a link to the Microsoft Teams hearing stating:
Please be advised that the interlocutory hearing today has been temporarily stood down and will resume at 11AM today and take place using Microsoft Teams. Please find attached a Listing Notice with a link to the hearing.
At 11AM, please click on the link in the attached Listing Notice. You will be prompted to join as a guest. Enter your name and join the meeting. You will then enter a virtual lobby where you should wait until the Tribunal admits you into the hearing room. You can refer to the User guide to video hearings using Microsoft Teams on the AAT website for further information. Please ensure that you are in a private place where you will not be interrupted and cannot be overheard. Please also ensure that your device is fully charged and you have all your documents with you.
Please contact me by email if you have any difficulties.
The Tribunal received no response from the applicant to the email prior to the recommencement of the hearing at 11 AM, either by telephone or return email.
At 11 AM the Tribunal associate attempted to connect the applicant by telephone and again the applicant answered, indicated that he could not hear and then disconnected.
At 11:13 AM and 11:15 AM the Tribunal associate sent texts to the applicant’s telephone number as follows:
AAT MSG: To join hearing, please call +61291587123 and entered the conference ID 697358706#.
AAT MSG: if you are unable to participate by MS Teams please explain the reason as soon as possible
AAT MSG: For more info call us on 1800 228 333. End of message.
No response to the text messages was received by the Tribunal.
In all of the circumstances, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant had had prior notice of the resumed hearing; and that reasonable attempts had been made to contact the applicant and join him to the hearing.
In the absence of further medical evidence, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was incapable of participating in the resumed hearing for the applicant’s stated reason that he was suffering Covid-19 symptoms. Nor, in the absence of further medical evidence, was the Tribunal satisfied that the applicant was unable to participate in the resumed hearing for any other medical reason, including his previously diagnosed mental health conditions.
In the Tribunal’s view, it was reasonable to infer that the applicant was able to participate in the resumed hearing that morning, in one or both of the formats offered, given that he had been capable of engaging in a telephone conversation with the Tribunal associate initially without any apparent difficulty, and given that in the subsequent telephone calls made by the Tribunal there appeared to be no difficulty in successfully making a call to the applicant and hearing him clearly. In addition, the applicant had also been able to engage in email correspondence with the Tribunal that morning, again without any apparent difficulty.
In all of the circumstances, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the reception issues claimed by the applicant could reasonably explain his inability to hear the caller in the subsequent calls that were successfully made to the applicant for the purpose of the resumed hearing. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that claimed reception issues could reasonably explain how, after initially being able to engage in an email exchange with the Tribunal that morning, the applicant could not then participate in the hearing via Microsoft Teams.
The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was being truthful in claiming an inability to participate in the resumed hearing due to reception issues. The Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant chose of his own volition and without a reasonable excuse to not participate in the resumed hearing. In all of the circumstances, the Tribunal formed the view that it was appropriate to proceed with the resumed hearing in the absence of the applicant.
At the resumed hearing, the respondent reiterated its opposition to the reinstatement of the applications and repeated its submissions made at the first day of the hearing on

8 February 2022 and also in its written submissions of 16 December 2021 and 14 January 2022. Again, the respondent contended that the applicant had been aware of the

17 December hearing and that the explanation he had provided in his emails prior to the hearing was vague, oblique, and not credible. The Respondent further contended that his explanations provided in his email of 11, 12 and 14 January, his statutory declaration of 13 January 2022, and at the commencement of the reinstatement application hearing on 8 February 2022 had also been vague, oblique and not credible. In addition, despite again being given the opportunity to provide the medical certificates supporting his requests for the earlier adjournments, and the further detailed written explanation for his failure to attend the 17 December hearing, including any supporting evidence, the applicant had again failed to do so.
The Tribunal accepts the respondent’s contentions in this respect. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was aware of the proposed hearing on 17 December. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the applicant has not provided a reasonable explanation for his failure to attend the hearing on that day.
The Tribunal does not accept, on the basis of the evidence before it that the applicant was incapable of being available to attend the 17 December hearing due to any medical grounds. The Tribunal accepts, on the basis of the copy of a Mental Health Plan the applicant has provided to the Tribunal, that the applicant in early November last year was suffering depression and stress due to a number of personal circumstances. However, in the absence of further detailed medical evidence regarding the nature and extent of that condition and its impact on the applicant in the period immediately leading up to the 17 December hearing, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was incapable of participating in the

17 December hearing because of the condition.
Nor is the Tribunal satisfied on the basis of the evidence before it that the applicant was incapable of participating in the 17 December hearing for any other reason. In the Tribunal’s view, the fact that the applicant was able to engage in the email exchange with the Tribunal on the morning of the 17 December hearing in the manner in which he did, provides a basis for inferring that he had the capacity to join the meeting by telephone at that time. Similarly, the Tribunal does not accept on the basis of the information provided that the applicant was so impacted by the death of a dear friend, or due to concerns for the health of other family members, or for any other reason, as to have been incapable of participating in the hearing on 17 December. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant chose of his own volition to not participate in that hearing and did so without a reasonable excuse.
For these reasons the Tribunal is not satisfied with the explanation provided by the applicant for his failure to appear at the 17 December hearing.
Prospects of success
The respondent’s contention was that that the applicant had no reasonable prospects of success in respect of each of the substantive applications; and that in such circumstances a reinstatement would be futile and should not be granted.
The Tribunal has given consideration to the prospects of success question, based on the information included in the Tribunal materials lodged in respect of both of the substantive applications. The Tribunal notes that there is very little evidence before the Tribunal in support of the applicant’s case in respect of either matter. The submissions provided by the applicant are also reasonably limited. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has been afforded ample opportunity to provide further evidence or submissions in support of his applications but has not done so. The Tribunal had also intended to hear from the applicant directly on this point at the resumed reinstatement hearing. However, as explained above, the applicant chose of his own volition to not participate in that hearing.
Application number 2021/1586
This matter relates to an objection to the discharge of the applicant’s bankruptcy filed by the Trustee.
On 31 August 2020 the Trustee filed a notice of objection to the discharge of the applicant’s bankruptcy on several grounds under section 149D(1) of the Bankruptcy Act. As a consequence, the period of the applicant’s bankruptcy was extended. The grounds relied on by the Trustee included that:
(a)the bankrupt, when requested in writing by the trustee to provide written information about the bankruptcy property, income or expected income, failed to comply with the request;
(b)after the date of the bankruptcy, the bankrupt intentionally provided false or misleading information to the trustee;
(c)the bankrupt failed to disclose any particulars of income or expected income as required by provision of [the Bankruptcy Act] referred to in subsection 6A(1) or by section 139U;
(d)the bankrupt failed to pay the trustee an amount that the bank was liable to pay under section 139ZG; and
(e)at any time during the period of five years immediately before the commencement of the bankruptcy, or at any time during the bankruptcy, the bankrupt spent money but failed to explain adequately to the trustee the purpose for which the money was spent.
Following the filing of the objection notice, the applicant applied to the Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA) to have the respondent review the Trustee’s decision. The respondent conducted a review and affirmed the Trustee’s decision. In doing so the respondent set aside two of the grounds the Trustee had relied on in the notice of objection, but confirmed the other three grounds under sections 149D(1)(d), 149D(1)(da) and 149D(1)(g)(i).
The applicant then sought review of the respondent’s decision, which is the matter before this Tribunal.
The applicant continues to maintain that the respondent should have set aside the entirety of the Trustee’s notice of objection and decided that there was no proper basis for extending his bankruptcy.
In his application seeking to have the respondent review the Trustee’s notice of objection, the applicant made a number of submissions. Those submissions could most accurately be described as a statement of the applicant’s account of his engagement with the Trustee in the period leading up to the filing of the notice of objection, and his complaints in respect of the Trustee’s conduct. In the submissions the applicant contends that there were no proper grounds for the filing of the notice of objection. More specifically, the submissions can be summarised as follows:
(a)That the Trustee had engaged in extortion tactics by demanding that the applicant pay an amount of money to the Trustee in return for having the objection notice withdrawn;
(b)That the Trustee had abused his position, acted unethically, and been involved in a clear conflict of interest;
(c)That the applicant agreed to have a representative of the Trustee attend the office of the applicant’s former adviser and collect all relevant documents and correspondence;
(d)That the Trustee had become very aggressive towards the applicant in his demands for information and that the applicant had found those requests confusing, as he had understood the representative of the Trustee would attend the office of his former adviser and collect all relevant documents and correspondence;
(e)That the Trustee had threatened the applicant that he was going to extend the applicant’s bankruptcy and have criminal charges laid against him;
(f)That the applicant had told the Trustee that he had handed everything across to his former adviser, and that his former adviser had said that he should not speak to the Trustee as he was handling things;
(g)That the applicant attempted suicide due to stress the Trustee was putting on him;
(h)That the Trustee had effectively forced him to agree to the contribution assessments for contribution assessment periods (CAP) 1 and 2 in order to get permission to be able to travel overseas;
(i)That the applicant had to borrow funds in order to pay for the applicant’s travel;
(j)That in July 2020 the Trustee demanded more information, which both the applicant and his former adviser had already provided, and had told the applicant that he wanted “better answers or I will extend your bankruptcy”;
(k)That the applicant had given the Trustee all information that was in his possession and more, and he felt that the Trustee was abusing his power and position;
In response to a question in the application form seeking review by the respondent of the Trustee’s notice of objection, as to whether the applicant has any excuse for the conduct or failures on which the Trustee has based his objection, the applicant stated as follows:
I have not a single excuse - I have provided Mr Crouch with anything he has ever wanted that is in my control.
Mr Crouch [has] asked for documents that are not in my control at all
Mr Crouch agreed to (via his partner Shabnam) to collect all documents from
Mr Graeme Watters [office]
Mr Watters also had one of his staff members leave his [office] - then move to Sydney and work for [Mr Crouch’s office] for over a year
I [could] not have given [Mr Crouch] anymore documents that I had under my control
Also - AFSA needs to know that I gave Mr Watters many documents over the years and whatever computer documents Mr Watters had were taken by the
“Federal police” during a raid on his offices sometime in 2019
Mr Watters is now telling me he doesn’t have some of the files I handed him
Can you please urgently review this file
Annexed to the application for review before this Tribunal was a series of further submissions in respect of this matter that appear to have been prepared by the applicant’s former legal representatives, Hunt & Hunt. The further submissions put on behalf of the applicant can be summarised as follows:
(a) That there was no utility in extending the applicant’s bankruptcy and therefore the notice of objection was beyond the Trustee’s power;
(b) That the requested information and sufficient further responses were provided by the applicant to the Trustee;
(c)   To the extent that any responses were considered inadequate, it is not clear that the applicant is able to provide additional information;
(d) That in any case the Trustee completed a reassessment of the applicant’s income contribution for the relevant period and therefore the additional information serves no utility.
(e) That the Trustee had not attended to the estate’s affairs in a timely or efficient manner, and had he done so there would have been no need for an extension of the period of bankruptcy;
(f)    That the Trustee was motivated to extend the period of bankruptcy in order to attend to outstanding matters which had not been undertaken in time as a consequence of delays by the Trustee;
(g) That the Trustee did not clearly advise the applicant of the further information he required, and that made it difficult for the applicant to provide further information in a proper or effective manner;
(h) That any inadequacies in the information provided by the applicant to the Trustee are attributable to the failures of the applicant’s adviser, or as a result of having received poor legal advice;
(i)    That in undertaking his review the respondent failed to take account of relevant considerations and took account of irrelevant considerations.

The respondent continues to maintain that its decision to affirm the Trustee’s notice of objection on three of the grounds relied upon by the Trustee was the correct decision in all of the circumstances and should be affirmed by the Tribunal. The respondent contends that the submissions lodged on behalf of the applicant in the annexure to his application for review, as well as those previously made by the applicant in his AFSA review, amount to nothing more than unsubstantiated allegations or speculation without any independent corroborating evidence.
Based on its review of all the materials before, it the Tribunal agrees with this assessment. The annexed submissions included a statement that “Detailed submissions in support of the reasons for the setting aside of the Inspector-General and Bankruptcy’s decision are proposed to be filed following the filing this application”. No such further detailed submissions were filed. In addition, at a case conference in respect of this matter held on 16 June 2021 consent orders were agreed requiring the applicant to produce further evidence in support of his claims by 16 August 2021. The applicant subsequently sought an extension of time, which was granted, but no further substantive evidence has been filed by the applicant in the matter. In addition, no further substantive submissions have been made. The applicant has now had a substantial period in which to present substantive evidence in support of his claims, to the Trustee initially, then the respondent in the course of the review, and before the Tribunal itself. The Tribunal accepts the respondent’s contention that in the circumstances it is reasonable to infer that the reason that the applicant has not produced any substantive evidence in support of his claims is because no such evidence exists.
In any case, in assessing the applicant’s prospects for success in this matter the Tribunal can only have regard to the material before it. On the material before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has very poor prospects of success in this matter. As noted above, the only substantive material of any kind that has been provided by the applicant were the unsupported submissions referred to. Those submissions essentially fall into two central themes. First, that the applicant has provided all of the information that he had within his control and to the extent that documents or information were not able to be obtained from the applicant’s former adviser it is because files were seized from the applicant’s former adviser in an Australian Federal Police raid in 2019. Second, that the Trustee was motivated to extend the applicant’s bankruptcy for an improper purpose and that the notice of objection has no utility and was therefore beyond power. The submissions also take issue with some aspects of the Trustee’s conduct and how the respondent conducted its review.
The most obvious difficulty the applicant has with his claims is that he has produced no independent corroborating evidence to support them. Given the history in this matter, the Tribunal has no confidence that the substantive application was to be reinstated that such evidence would subsequently be produced by the applicant. In the absence of supporting evidence, it is very difficult to see how the applicant’s prospects of success could be described as being any higher than extremely poor.
However, in the Tribunal’s view, the unsupported submissions offer no real case at all in respect of the section 149D(1)(g)(i) objection ground. That ground provides that:
at any time during the period of five years immediately before the commencement of the bankruptcy, or at any time during the bankruptcy, the bankrupt spent money but failed to explain adequately to the trustee the purpose for which the money was spent.
The Tribunal materials include a series of correspondence between representatives of the applicant’s former adviser and representatives of the Trustee, in relation to a series of loan funds received by the applicant in the period leading up to his bankruptcy.
A letter from the applicant’s former adviser to a representative of the Trustee dated

30 November 2017 states as follows:
Anton & Melinda Wilson Family Trust
We advise that Bankrupt was a beneficiary of the Trust. We enclose a copy of the Trust Deed for your perusal.
In respect of the Trustee’s income assessment the letter goes on to note “Our client has been borrowing funds from the Anton & Melinda Wilson Family Trust and Ian Street Developer Pty Ltd. Our client is now unemployed.”
A letter from the applicant’s former adviser to a representative of the Trustee dated

9 February 2018 attaches copies of loan accounts for the applicant in respect of Anton & Melinda Wilson Pty Ltd as trustee for the Anton & Melinda Wilson Family Trust and Ian Street Developer Pty Ltd for the financial year ending 30 June 2017. The attached loan accounts evidence loans to the applicant totalling in excess of $600,000 during that period. In that letter no explanation is provided for how those loan funds were expended.
An email dated 22 February 2018, from a representative of the Trustee to a representative of the applicant’s former adviser, includes a request for further information in relation to the loan accounts including: executed loan agreement, evidence of payment to bankrupt from company’s bank account; evidence of the bankrupt’s receipt of the payments; confirmation of how the total $673,298 was utilised by the bankrupt. A request is also made for the following information in relation to the bankrupt’s income:
·The quantum of monies paid to the bankrupt by way of income payments from 7 Sept 17 to 22 February 2018 from Anton & Melinda Wilson Pty Ltd and Ian Street developer Pty Ltd, and evidence of the payments from company’s bank account;
·The quantum of any other monies paid to the bankrupt from 7 Sept 17 to 22 February 2018 from Anton & Melinda Wilson Pty Ltd and Ian Street developer Pty Ltd, and evidence of the payments from the company’s bank account;
·Evidence of receipt of the above payments by the bankrupt by way of bank statements or otherwise;
·Anticipated further income payments/other payments to be made from the above entities to the bankrupt for the period 22 February 2018 to
7 September 2018;
A subsequent letter from the applicant’s former adviser to a representative of the Trustee, dated 27 February 2018, states in response the following:
a.    We advise there are no loan agreements executed.
b.    The majority of the loan payments have been made in cash and do not go through the company accounts that are recorded in the company accounts for tax purposes.
c.     We enclose a statutory declaration from the bankrupt confirming receipt of loan monies.
d.    Regarding the utilisation of funds, please see the statutory declaration by the bankrupt.
The letter goes on to state in respect of “Income”:
a.The Bankrupt has received no funds from either Anton & Melinda Wilson Pty Ltd or Ian Street Developer Pty Ltd in the period 7 September 2017 to 22 February 2018, nor does he expect any payments from [sic] the 22 February to 7 September 2018.
The letter provides no further information in relation to the loan accounts nor any information into how those loan funds were expended. The letter attaches a copy of a statutory declaration by the applicant dated 26 February 2018. The declaration states:
I have received in the period 01/07/2016 to 30/06/2017 approximately $600,000 in loans from Ian Street Developer Pty Ltd and the Anton & Melinda Wilson Family Trust.
I further advise that the majority of funds I have received were in cash and the funds have been used for living expenses have been paid for various expenses relating to projects I have been investigating so as to earn a living.
An email dated 6 March 2018, by a representative of the Trustee to a representative of the applicant’s former adviser, requests further information including a copy of the 2017 financial accounts for Ian Street Developer Pty Ltd.
The Trustee wrote to the applicant’s former adviser on 13 July 2020 requesting further information in relation to various aspects of the applicant’s bankrupt estate. The letter was copied into the applicant. Specifically, in relation to the applicant’s income, the letter states as follows:
I refer to the bankrupt’s statutory declaration of 26 February 2018 wherein the bankrupt advised approximately $600,000 received from related entities during the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 was spent on living expenses prior to his bankruptcy.
I advise that the statutory declaration does not contain adequate details explaining the expenditure, and that my view of the details provided to date suggests the bankrupt’s conduct may constitute a breach of section 265 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
I invite you to provide further and better particulars in relation to same. This includes documents evidencing the expenditure, and a copy of the Division 7A loan agreement between Ian Street Developer Pty Ltd and the bankrupt.
An email from the applicant’s former adviser to the Trustee dated 4 August 2020, in response to the Trustee’s letter of 13 July 2020, states as follows:
In relation to the bankrupts [sic] income in 2017 and 2018 our client does not recall the expenditure as it was 2-3 years ago.
We trust this answers your questions.
In response, in an email from the Trustee to the applicant’s former adviser on 20 August 2020, the Trustee stated, “THIS RESPONSE IS INADEQUATE AND UNHELPFUL”.
On 31 August 2020, the Trustee filed the notice of objection which included, as one of the grounds being relied upon, the Trustee’s view that the applicant had failed to adequately explain to the Trustee the purpose for which the in excess of $600,000 loan funds were spent.
Based on the materials before the Tribunal, there would appear to be no doubt that the applicant received and expended loan funds in excess of $600,000 in the period leading up to his bankruptcy, as referenced in the Trustee’s notice of objection. The applicant himself does not appear to contest this point. There is no question in the Tribunal’s mind that the information provided by the applicant, in response to the Trustee’s requests for information regarding the loan funds and how they were expended, was inadequate. The most substantive response he provided was that included in the statutory declaration of

26 February 2018, which provides nothing more than a very general statement that the funds were utilised for living expenses and “various expenses relating to projects I have been investigating so as to earn a living”. Again, there is no doubt in the mind of the Tribunal that this was an inadequate response to the request for information made by the Trustee. There is no question in the mind of the Tribunal that the Trustee was clear in his insistence that the information provided was inadequate and thus his request for further information. There is no evidence to support the applicant’s claim that the Trustee was motivated by any improper purpose in requesting the information or in his filing of the objection notice.
There is nothing in the materials to suggest that a satisfactory explanation for how those funds were expended has ever been provided by the applicant.
Nor, in the Tribunal’s view, is there anything to suggest that the applicant had a reasonable excuse for his failure to adequately answer the request for information made by the Trustee.
The section 149D(1)(g)(i) objection ground is a special ground for the purpose of section 194N(1A) of the Bankruptcy Act; and as such it is necessary to give consideration to any reasonable excuse for the failure to provide the information required. In the applicant’s submissions, the only express reference to an excuse was the claim that the relevant files held by his former adviser had been seized by the AFP in a raid in 2019. The respondent contends that there is no independent corroborating evidence for this claim, and it should not be accepted. The Tribunal agrees. The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant has provided all of the information in his control in respect of the loan funds and how those funds were expended. The Tribunal accepts the respondent’s contention that it is not plausible that the applicant had spent over $600,000 in loan funds from related entities over a 12-month period shortly before his bankruptcy commenced, and yet is not in a position to provide relevant details as to how those funds were expended to the Trustee.
There was also a claim by the applicant that any failure to provide information requested was due to the failures of his former adviser or as a consequence of poor legal advice. No particulars are provided in respect of these claims, nor is there any evidence to support them. The applicant’s submissions also made reference to the stress the applicant was under at the time, and of a suicide attempt. However, there is no independent corroborating evidence to support a conclusion that such circumstances were a reasonable excuse for his failure to provide information requested. In this context, the Tribunal notes that the Mental Health Plan lodged by the applicant that had been prepared in early November 2021 specifically notes that the applicant had, as at that date, received no prior treatment in respect of his mental health. In addition, the applicant himself has not expressly cited stress or a suicide attempt as an excuse for his failure to provide the information requested. To the contrary, the applicant claims that he has provided everything within his control. As noted above, in the Tribunal’s view such a claim is simply not plausible.
In the Tribunal’s view, the evidence as it stands strongly supports a conclusion that each of the elements required to be established under the 149D(1)(g)(i) objection ground is satisfied. In addition, the Tribunal is satisfied that there was a clear utility in the Trustee seeking an extension to the applicant’s bankruptcy in order to obtain the information that had been requested to ensure that the Trustee was in a position to fully understand the applicant’s financial affairs and also to form a view on the Trustee’s stated concern that a provision of the Bankruptcy Act may have been breached.
The Tribunal is also satisfied that if the applicant fails in respect of the section 149D(1)(g)(i) objection ground then that is of itself sufficient to affirm the decision under review. That is because the section 149D(1)(g)(i) objection ground is a special ground which, pursuant to section 149A(2), if made out, provides for an extension of the applicant’s bankruptcy for the maximum period.
For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that there are no reasonable prospects of the applicant being successful in his review in respect of application number 2021/1586.
Application number 2021/4561
This matter relates to income contribution assessments levied upon the applicant by the Trustee in respect of CAP 1,2 and 3.
The applicant sought a review of the assessments with the respondent and the respondent declined to conduct a review. It is that decision that the applicant has sought to have revisited through his application to this Tribunal.
The Trustee made his assessments substantially on the basis of information relating to the applicant’s income and property, as disclosed by the applicant himself in a statutory declaration dated 1 September 2020, which had been prepared for a separate proceeding before VCAT. The Trustee also relied on further disclosures made by the applicant in a tenancy application and a tenant financial hardship application, both of which had also been signed by the applicant.
Section 139ZA(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act provides that the respondent may undertake a review of a decision of a trustee to make a contributions assessment, if requested to do so by the bankrupt, for reasons that appear to the respondent to be sufficient to justify a review. The respondent concluded that he was not satisfied that there were sufficient reasons to justify a review and declined to undertake a review of the Trustee’s decision on that basis.
In his request for a review the applicant claimed that:
(a)The Trustee had acted dishonestly by falsely accusing the applicant of “acts that bear no meaning and have no basis whatsoever”;
(b)The applicant had provided the Trustee with all information available to him that there were no discrepancies in any of that information;
(c)The third-party information relied on by the Trustee is a poor attempt by him to make false assumptions and accusations against the applicant;
(d)The applicant’s wife, while being very ill at various times, had been fortunate to have many others help run the business, and that the applicant did not work in the business; and
(e)The applicant had temporarily moved into an area of the rental property at Kinkora Road, Hawthorn to see the applicant’s family during a hard lockdown, but that the applicant’s permanent address is and always has been Ballarat Road, Geelong.
In his application for review before this Tribunal the applicant’s stated reasons for the application were as follows:
The decision was wrong; as the Trustee has provided false and misleading information and has acted with unconscionable behaviour to defraud ASFA. Furthermore the Inspector General failed to fully take into account all relevant information at hand.
The statutory declaration relied on by the Trustee sets out income details in respect of the applicant and his family as being $658,445.12 for 2017/18, $735,158.98 for 2018/19 and $97,134 as a forecast for 2019/2020, with total net assets as at 31 August 2020 of $1,435,000.
The Trustee attributed all of the income disclosed to the applicant, on the basis of statements made by the applicant and the applicant’s former adviser, that the applicant’s wife had not been fit for work due to a serious health condition and that the applicant’s children were all dependents at that time. The Trustee also attributed the income to the applicant on the basis that there was evidence that the applicant was working as the managing director of the Mider Group at the relevant time.
In this later respect the Trustee relied on the tenancy application in respect of a property at Kinkora, Road Hawthorn and a financial hardship application again in respect of the property at Kinkora Road. Both of those documents had been personally signed by the applicant. The tenancy application was in the name of the applicant and provided for an agreement to enter into a tenancy for the Kinkora Road property with a monthly rental of $15,208 and a $21,000 bond. In the tenancy application the applicant also discloses that he is managing director of the Mider Group. The application for financial hardship was also in the applicant’s name. In it the applicant seeks a rent reduction from $15,000 to $2000 per calendar month, for a period of six months, in respect of the Kinkora property, and also discloses that he is a business owner.
The applicant contends that the income disclosed in the statutory declaration is substantially not his own but rather that of his wife and also that some amount of it is attributable to his children. The applicant maintains that he is not in a position to be more specific about his own income, nor that of his wife or children. The applicant contends that he was not acting as the managing director of the Mider Group at the time but that rather his wife was operating the business independently of him. The applicant also claims that he was not living at the Kinkora property but that he had only visited the property for a period during lockdown. The applicant has also claimed that he does not know who was paying the rent at the Kinkora Road property; that he does not have any personal tax returns he can provide to evidence his actual income during the relevant periods; that he has no insight into what income other household members may have earned at that time; and that he was otherwise not in possession of the further information being sought.

On the materials before the Tribunal the applicant’s claims in this respect do not appear to be plausible. What makes the applicant’s contentions even more difficult is that the Trustee has based his conclusions almost entirely on disclosures the applicant himself has made in the statutory declaration and in the two application forms previously referred to.
More specifically, the suggestion that it was his wife and not the applicant himself running the business in the Tribunal’s view is not consistent with the evidence and not credible. The evidence strongly suggests that the applicant himself was centrally involved in the running of the business. The applicant declared that he was the applicant in the two application forms in respect of the Kinkora Road property. There was also evidence that the Mider Group website at the time identified the applicant as the founder, owner and chief executive. In addition, the Tribunal materials included a Trustee file note of a VCAT hearing in respect of a separate matter that was held on 3 September 2020 involving the applicant. The file note records the applicant on oath describing the affairs of the Mider Group in significant detail. There is no claim that the file note is not an accurate record of the hearing. In the Tribunal’s view the level of detail with which the applicant described the affairs of the business as recorded in the file note would strongly suggest that he was centrally involved in the operations of the business at that time.
In addition, the evidence strongly suggests that the applicant’s wife at the time was suffering very significant health issues and had a very limited work capacity. The evidence includes a number of statements by both the applicant and his former adviser to that effect. In the Tribunal’s view it is not plausible that the applicant’s wife was undertaking meaningful work at this time and that the income referenced in the statutory declaration could be reasonably attributed to her. The Tribunal is also satisfied on the materials that the applicant’s children did not contribute in any significant way to the household income referenced in the statutory declaration. The applicant’s own Statement of Affairs signed by the applicant and dated 6 September 2017 discloses no income attributable to the applicant’s four children although there is a reference in a file note in respect of the VCAT proceedings to one of the applicant’s children having been in receipt of a small amount of government support payments. The applicant now claims that the reference in the tenancy application form to him being the managing director of the Mider Group was a statement of hope and expectation and its inclusion in the form was an oversight. The Tribunal does not accept this explanation. The Tribunal is also satisfied that the weight of the evidence strongly suggests that the applicant did in fact live at the Kinkora Road property and was responsible for the payment of rent in respect of the property. The Tenancy application and the application for hardship both support this conclusion. On the evidence the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was at that the relevant time working as managing director of the Mider Group and living at the Kinkora Road property and that the statements of income referenced in the statutory declaration and on which the Trustee based his assessments were reasonably attributable to him.
The applicant has also claimed that in making his decision the Trustee has acted dishonestly, falsely accusing the applicant of “acts that bear no meaning” and making false assumptions. These claims are vague and general and, in any case, again are not supported by any independent evidence.
The applicant has indicated that he needs more time to gather additional evidence to support his claims. In this respect, the Tribunal accepts the respondent’s contention that the applicant has had over a year or more to provide any further evidence in support of his claims, but he has failed to do so. He has also failed to provide any further substantive information to either the Trustee or the respondent, in response to requests by each in the course of their respective decision making. The applicant has sought several requests for extensions of time to provide further information and on each occasion has failed to do so. The Tribunal is again satisfied that given that the applicant has not produced persuasive supporting evidence in respect of his claims to this point despite having had a number of opportunities to do so it is reasonable to infer that no such evidence exists.
In the Tribunal’s view, on the evidence as it stands, the reasons put by the applicant do not appear to be sufficient to justify a review of the Trustee’s assessments.
For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that there are no reasonable prospects of the applicant being successful in his review in respect of Application number 2021/4561.
Public interest / fairness
The Tribunal has also given careful regard to public interest and fairness considerations in respect of these matters.
Clearly, if the Tribunal finds against the applicant in this reinstatement application the applicant will suffer prejudice in the sense that his applications will be discontinued. That is the ultimate prejudice a party can suffer and one that ought not be countenanced lightly. However, in the Tribunal’s view, the weight to be given to this consideration is significantly reduced by the Tribunal’s earlier conclusion, based on careful consideration, that the applications have no reasonable prospects of success.
The respondent has not pointed to any specific prejudice it will suffer if the applications are reinstated but has emphasised that there has been a significant amount of time and resources that have been invested in these applications to date, and that, given the procedural history and the demonstrated lack of willingness on the part of the applicant to progress the matters in a timely way, it is very likely that there would continue to be significant additional resources that would need to be applied in seeking to progress the matters to finalisation.
The Tribunal is very mindful of the obligation to ensure that proceedings are undertaken in a manner that is fair, economic and quick, consistent with the objectives in section 2A of the AAT Act. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant has a repeated history of failing to comply with the Tribunal’s directions. On a number of occasions he has sought adjournments or extensions of time for the purpose of being able to provide information to the Tribunal which he has then failed to provide. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has provided a reasonable excuse for his repeated failures to provide information or comply with directions. For the reasons already set out, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s failures can be reasonably explained by personal health issues or other personal issues as claimed by the applicant. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant has demonstrated a lack of willingness to progress the matters in a timely manner. In all of the circumstances, the Tribunal has no confidence that the applicant’s conduct will be any different if the applications were to be reinstated. This is of very serious concern to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal is also mindful of the broader public interest. Time and resources committed to these applications is impacting on the capacity of the respondent and the Tribunal to address issues being progressed by other applicants, including applicants who have demonstrated a determination to progress their matters to finalisation.
Given the significant history of the applicant failing to comply with Tribunal directions and demonstrating, in the Tribunal’s view, an unwillingness to progress the matters in a timely the manner, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it is, on balance, in the public interest or the interest of fairness to all parties that the applications be reinstated.
CONCLUSION
Having had careful regard to all of the circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to reinstate the applications. Accordingly, the Tribunal dismisses the applications for reinstatement.
DECISION
The applications for reinstatement are dismissed.

I certify that the preceding 108 (one hundred and eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision of The Hon. Matthew Groom, Senior Member

..............................[SDG].................................
Associate
Dated: 12 April 2022

Date(s) of hearing: 8 February 2022 and 16 February 2022

Applicant: By telephone

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Catherine Gobbo

[2022] AATA 730

16 February 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Insolvency

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Date(s) of hearing:	8 February 2022 and 16 February 2022
Applicant:	By telephone
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms Catherine Gobbo