Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 502
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No W2005/316
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DIVISION ) Re PAUL WILLIAM YOUNG Applicant
And
INSPECTOR-GENERAL IN BANKRUPTCY
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr S Penglis, Senior Member Date8 June 2006
PlacePerth
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review. ............(sgd S Penglis)................
Senior Member
Reference
Section 149(D(1)(d)
This objection has the effect of extending the bankruptcy to 8 years from the date the Statement of Affairs was lodged with the Official Receiver.
Ground 2
After the date of the bankruptcy, the bankrupt intentionally provided false or misleading information to the trustee
Reference
Section 149D (1)(da)
This objection has the effect of extending the bankruptcy to 8 years from the date the Statement of Affairs was lodged with the Official Receiver.
Ground 3
The bankrupt failed to disclose any particulars of income or expected income as required by a provision of this Act referred to in subsection 6A (1) or by section 139U;
Reference
Section 149D(1)(e)
The objection has the effect of extending the bankruptcy to 8 years from the date the Statement of Affairs was lodged with the Official Receiver.”
4. The effect of the Objection was to extend the term of the applicant’s bankruptcy until 28 November 2009.
5. By letter dated 4 February 2004 from his then solicitors, the applicant sought a review by the respondent of the Objection.
6. By letter dated 24 March 2005, the respondent advised the applicant of the respondent’s decision to uphold the Objection. That is the review decision the subject of this application.
LEGISLATION
7. The grounds of objection to discharge relied upon by Mr Ambrose and affirmed by the respondent are set out in s 149D of the Act. The section relevantly provides:
“(1) The grounds of objection that may be set out in a notice of objection are as follows:
…
(d)the bankrupt, when requested in writing by the trustee to provide written information about the bankrupt’s property, income or expected income, failed to comply with the request;
(da)after the date of the bankruptcy, the bankrupt intentionally provided false and misleading information to the trustee;
(e)the bankrupt failed to disclose any particulars of income or expected income as required by a provision of this Act referred to in subsection 6A (1) or by section 139U.”
8. For the purposes of paragraph 149D(1), the Bankruptcy Regulations 1966 relevantly provide, by Regulation 7.01A, that:
“For paragraph 149D (1) (d) of the Act, a bankrupt is taken to have failed to comply with a request to provide information if the bankrupt has provided information that is incomplete or inaccurate”.
9. A bankrupt’s general duties to provide information relating to his or her property is set out in paragraph 77 of the Act:
(1)A bankrupt shall, unless excused by the trustee or prevented by illness or other sufficient cause:
(a) forthwith after becoming a bankrupt, give to the trustee:
(i) all books (including books of an…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Young and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] AATA 502
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Young could rely on failures on the part of his professional agent to establish a reasonable excuse and whether his depression and anxiety constituted a reasonable excuse under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The Tribunal also needed to determine if Young had provided sufficient evidence to support the existence of at least one special ground.
In examining the evidence, the Tribunal found that Young had not demonstrated that he had a reasonable excuse for his conduct that constituted a special ground. The Tribunal held that Young's reliance on his professional agent's failures did not constitute a reasonable excuse for his own conduct. Additionally, while depression and anxiety may be mitigating factors, they did not amount to a reasonable excuse in this context. The Tribunal concluded that Young had failed to establish that he had a reasonable excuse for his conduct that constituted a special ground under the Act.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review, thereby upholding the Inspector-General's decision to not discharge Young from bankruptcy.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.