Kostov (Bankrupt) v Australian Financial Security Authority, in the matter of Kostov - [2020] FCA 1105 - FCA 2020 case summary — Zoe

CTHFCA

Kostov (Bankrupt) v Australian Financial Security Authority, in the matter of Kostov

[2020] FCA 1105

Federal Court of Australia|2020-07-20|Before: Farrell J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Federal Court of Australia

Decision date

2020-07-20

Before

Farrell J

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (43 paragraphs)

[1]

The application for a stay filed on 10 July 2020 is refused.
The proceedings, including all interlocutory applications made by the applicant, be dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondents' costs as agreed or taxed.
Pursuant to r 39.03(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), any further proceedings brought by the applicant against either of the respondents for some or all of the same or substantially the same causes of action or relief as those claimed in these proceedings be stayed until the costs the subject of order 3 have been paid. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

[2]

INTRODUCTION 1 On 18 July 2018, District Registrar Wall made a sequestration order against the estate of the applicant, Adriana Kostov, on the application of a creditor, Jeffrey Lind Easton. The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy was appointed as the trustee of Ms Kostov's bankrupt estate. Ms Kostov did not appear at the hearing of the creditor's petition before the District Registrar. 2 On 12 December 2018, an application made by Ms Kostov on 13 September 2018 for an extension of time and review of the orders made by the District Registrar on 18 July 2018 was dismissed by Robertson J. As noted by Robertson J, the bankruptcy proceedings arose out of costs orders made in proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against Ms Kostov and the certificate of the relevant judgment of that Court was in the total amount of $24,447.96. Ms Kostov did not appear at the hearing of her application: Easton v Kostov [2018] FCA 2002 at [1], [3], [18]-[20], [28]. 3 In the proceedings before the Court for hearing on 8 July 2020, Ms Kostov's applications were: (1) An originating application filed on 3 January 2019 as amended on 23 April 2019. The Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA) was named as the sole respondent. These applications sought: (a) An order pursuant to s 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) annulling the sequestration order made on 18 July 2018. (b) If the annulment order was not made, Ms Kostov sought the discharge of her bankruptcy within 12 months. (c) Orders removing AFSA as the trustee of her bankrupt estate and appointing a new trustee. The Court notes that the originating application filed on 3 January 2019 did not contain an application for removal the trustee of Ms Kostov's bankrupt estate. (2) A further amended application dated 27 April 2020. That application sought interim relief as follows: (a) Review by the Federal Court of a decision made by the Official Trustee and notified to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) in relation to proceedings NSW 2814/18/4 between Ms Kostov and Amelie Housing (formerly known as Ecclesia Housing Limited) in a letter from Terrence Arnold (a case manager acting for the Official Trustee) dated 15 November 2018 (November 2018 letter), (see [64(1)] below). The November 2018 letter was copied to Ms Kostov and Peterson Haines Lawyers on behalf of Amelie Housing. It is useful to note that Ms Kostov was locked out of social housing owned by Amelie Housing on 1 June 2018 (after proceedings brought by Ecclesia Housing Limited for Ms Kostov's eviction arising from Ms Kostov's failure to pay rent) and her chattels were placed in storage. A number of proceedings in NCAT and the Supreme Court of New South Wales related to that issue; (b) Copies of all correspondence between Carrie Peterson of Peterson Haines Lawyers (the firm acting for Amelie Housing) and AFSA, and disclosure of any pre-existing commercial or personal relationship between AFSA and Ms Peterson or Amelie Housing; and (c) That the Court direct that Ms Kostov be allocated a case manager within AFSA with legal qualifications. (3) An interim application filed on 21 May 2020. Ms Kostov sought orders that the proceedings be stayed until AFSA itemised and proved the costs "declared" in Melissa Bondin's affidavit sworn on 11 May 2020 and "if verified" the costs be "transferred to the Applicant's claim [that] the Respondent be removed as Trustee", that the annulment application be "transferred to a Judicial Review application before the Court, to avoid Respondents claiming costs for improper purpose", judicial review of the decision notified in the November 2018 letter, and, that the respondent provide copies of all communications between AFSA and Ms Peterson, Peterson Haines Lawyers and Amelie Housing, and disclose any pre-existing personal or commercial relationship between AFSA and Ms Peterson or Amelie Housing. (4) An application under r 20.31(3) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for the production of documents in categories 2 and 3 below which the respondents refused to produce under a document headed notice to produce given by Ms Kostov to AFSA on 9 June 2020 for: 1. Correspondence between Peterson Haines Lawyer and Amelie Housing, and Respondents in relation to Decision of Trustee of November 2018, pleaded in Paragraph 14 to 16 of Affidavit of Ms Melissa Bondin, dated 11 May 2020 2. Notes and proof of internal review of Decision of Trustee, and any communication between Mr Shaw, and Mr Matthew Osborne, Chief Legal Officer of the Respondent, to undertake a legal review of Decision, pleaded in Paragraph 16 of Affidavit of Ms Melissa Bondin, dated 11 May 2020 3. Proof of costs incurred, and costs estimated to be incurred by Respondent, pleaded in 21 and 22 of Affidavit of Ms Melissa Bondin, dated 11 May 2020 4 Ms Kostov did not appear at the hearing of her application on 28 October 2019. As Ms Kostov had refused to join the Official Trustee as a party, the Court made orders on that date joining the Official Trustee as a party and dismissed the amended application with costs. On 9 March 2020, the Court made orders setting aside the order dismissing Ms Kostov's application in circumstances described further below and made timetabling orders for the provision of evidence and submissions prior to a hearing listed for 16 June 2020. 5 In their submissions filed on 4 June 2020, the respondents stated that they neither opposed nor consented to the annulment of Ms Kostov's bankruptcy and otherwise gave notice that they sought the following orders from the Court: (1) Dismissing the proceedings; (2) Ordering that Ms Kostov pay the respondents' costs; and (3) Staying any further proceedings being commenced by Ms Kostov against the respondents until such time as the costs order has been satisfied. 6 Due to a death in Ms Kostov's family in early June 2020, the hearing was deferred to 8 July 2020. 7 On 24 June 2020 a hearing for return of a subpoena issued to Peterson Haines Lawyers and production of documents under the notice to produce was held before Judicial Registrar Cridland. Peterson Haines Lawyers had answered the subpoena issued to it on 9 June 2020 and the respondents produced documents in the first category, despite contesting that they were obliged to do so. It appears from enquiries made by my chambers with the Court's Registry that Ms Kostov has not sought to uplift any of the documents produced. 8 Ms Kostov and Scott Hedge of Colin Biggers & Paisley (who appeared for the respondents) attended the proceedings before Judicial Registrar Cridland on 24 June 2020. Shortly before that hearing, an employee of Global Skip Tracing Pty Ltd, on instructions from AFSA Enforcement, made a call to a telephone number of a relative of Ms Kostov seeking to obtain contact information relating to Ms Kostov. Ms Kostov raised this call at that hearing, seeking to know if Mr Hedge knew anything about it. Ms Kostov sent a number of emails on 24 June 2020 enquiring of Mr Hedge, Ms Bondin and others at AFSA and Global Skip Tracing about the reason for the call. On 25 June 2020, Ms Kostov was advised by an email from Ms Bondin that the contact was made as part of an enforcement program conducted by a separate part of AFSA directed to bankrupts who had not filed a statement of affairs or provided to the Official Trustee details of their residential address. 9 Ms Kostov filed written submissions dated 25 June 2020. Those submissions did not address the orders sought by the respondents. 10 Ms Kostov continued to make enquiries concerning the contact made by Global Skip Tracing on 24 June 2020. She ultimately refused to attend the hearing on 8 July 2020 if Mr Hedge appeared to represent the respondents until her allegations that Mr Hedge engineered the contact by Global Skip Tracing had been addressed. The Court did not accept that as a reasonable excuse for Ms Kostov to fail to attend the hearing. 11 At the hearing on 8 July 2020, the respondents pressed for the proceedings to be resolved and the Court proceeded to hear the matter in Ms Kostov's absence. Following the hearing, the Court advised the parties by email that it would deliver judgment on Tuesday, 14 July 2020 at 9.30 am and would accept no further submissions. 12 On 10 July 2020, Ms Kostov filed an application to stay delivery of judgment until she had been provided with a transcript of the hearing conducted on 8 July 2020 and she was given an opportunity to provide written submissions. 13 For the reasons which follow, in particular under the heading "Resolution" which commences at [182] below, the stay on delivery of judgment was refused and the Court made orders generally of a kind for which the respondents had pressed in their written submissions filed on 4 June 2020. 14 As she has asked the Court for clear guidance, it is important for Ms Kostov to note the matters set out at [15]-[30] below. 15 First, it is a fact that, by the sequestration order made on 18 July 2018, Ms Kostov became bankrupt and she has remained bankrupt from that time because the sequestration order has not been set aside and she has not been discharged from bankruptcy by force of s 149 of the Bankruptcy Act. 16 Second, nothing has been brought to the Court's attention which would indicate that the sequestration order was made in error or that Robertson J was wrong to refuse Ms Kostov an extension of time to review that sequestration order. 17 Third, the evidence indicates that Ms Kostov has not co-operated with her trustee by filing a statement of affairs or keeping the trustee advised of her residential address. The fact that a sequestration order was made on 18 July 2018 and it has not been set aside has the consequence that Ms Kostov has obligations under s 54 of the Bankruptcy Act to provide a statement of affairs within 14 days of becoming aware of the sequestration order and under s 80 of the Bankruptcy Act to update the Official Trustee about changes in her contact details, including her residential address. 18 Ms Kostov's mistaken belief that her obligations under ss 54 and 80 of the Bankruptcy Act were somehow suspended until she attended a hearing at which the Court found that she is bankrupt does not justify her failure to observe those obligations or her conduct in these proceedings. 19 Aside from any other consideration, it is plain from the Court's experience in these proceedings and the proceedings before Robertson J that, in the lead up to the final hearing of her applications, Ms Kostov finds reasons not to attend the hearing. The fact that Mr Hedge would represent the respondents at the hearing on 8 July 2020 was not a reasonable excuse for failing to attend that hearing, which was being conducted by electronic means and at which Ms Kostov would appear by telephone, nor was it a reason to adopt procedures whereby the parties would be heard in each other's absence. Ms Kostov provided copies of correspondence between Robertson J's associate and the parties in that matter in a chain attached to her email to my associate dated 9 August 2019. Discomfort about being cross-examined would not justify an ex parte hearing of her review application and late advice of work commitments and a medical appointment were not reasonable excuses to fail to attend the hearing before Robertson J on 12 December 2018 in circumstances where Ms Kostov had agreed to fix that date for hearing in November 2018. 20 The Court does not accept that Ms Kostov was harassed merely because an officer of AFSA, its solicitor or any person acting on its behalf states to her the effect of ss 54 and 80 of the Bankruptcy Act in written or oral communications or if it employs someone to seek to establish her current residential address for the purpose of AFSA taking enforcement action. 21 Fourth, this Court was not satisfied that Ms Kostov's bankruptcy should be annulled even though the Court accepts that it is likely that she did not attend the hearing or participate in the assessment of costs giving rise to the judgment debt obtained by Mr Easton which founded the bankruptcy petition due to a mental illness which was diagnosed in 2017: see Kostov v YPOL Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 306; (2018) 98 NSWLR 1002 at [3]-[9]. Mr Easton's judgment debt and a debt owed to Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd (Fairfax Media) remain in force and the information Ms Kostov has provided to the Court does not establish that she was able to pay those debts as at 18 July 2018 or at the time of the hearing on 8 July 2020. 22 Fifth, Ms Kostov's undisciplined and repetitious correspondence with the Court and the respondents' employees and solicitors has led to waste of the Court's time and resources and to the respondents incurring substantial unnecessary legal costs. Ms Kostov cannot now rely on those costs being incurred as a reason to remove the Official Trustee as the trustee of her bankrupt estate. Further, in the Court's view, the tenor of some of the communications to AFSA's employees and their frequency amounted to harassment by Ms Kostov. 23 It is unacceptable that Ms Kostov has failed to comply with the Court's orders in relation to the timing of filing evidence and submissions and that she has instead sent copious communications to the Court and chambers without leave in the face of directions not to do so. It is reprehensible that Ms Kostov routinely included the Court's Registry and my chambers on email communications with non-parties (such as Global Skip Tracing), her inter partes communications with the respondents' solicitors and emails sent by Ms Kostov to the respondents' employees. 24 That is true, even though the Court accepts that Ms Kostov had a diagnosed mental illness in 2017 and she has clearly struggled since then. Her comments at the hearing of her stay application would indicate that she is gaining insight into her conduct, but she still has a way to go and her continued contact with her doctors is plainly important. The fact that incidents cause her to "go on a tangent" which causes her to lose sight of the main game, as she told the Court, is an explanation but not an excuse. It does not relieve her of the obligation to meet a costs order when proceedings brought by her are dismissed and the costs order is assessed. As I told Ms Kostov at the hearing of her stay application on 20 July 2020, it does not justify Ms Kostov taking action to deliberately mislead Judicial Registrar Cridland and me about who had taken the call from Global Skip Tracing on 24 June 2020. I would now add that Ms Kostov's conduct after 25 June 2020, when Ms Bondin told her by whom the contact was made and why (see [110] below), was not justified, much of it was harassing in nature and involved AFSA incurring unnecessary cost. Ms Kostov's explanation also does not excuse the fact that many of the communications copied to the Court made scurrilous claims and some appeared to have the purpose of using the contact with the Court as some form of threat to the people to whom the emails were addressed. 25 It is also of concern that Ms Kostov's numerous applications to this Court and the course of litigation concerning Amelie Housing (effectively also raised in these proceedings) demonstrates that she will not accept determinations when they are made by a Court or the Official Trustee. That gives rise to the respondents' legitimate concern about whether she will seek to re-litigate the issues in these proceedings. 26 Sixth, the Official Trustee had no obligation to consult Ms Kostov before issuing the November 2018 letter (see [64(1)] below) and the Official Trustee's December 2018 letter (see [43] below) indicating that it would not prosecute proceedings commenced by Ms Kostov against Amelie Housing in NCAT and the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The fact that Ms Kostov has degrees in law and commerce makes no difference. 27 It was entirely open to the Official Trustee to conclude that it should not prosecute litigation commenced by Ms Kostov against Amelie Housing after she became bankrupt having regard to the fact that there appear to be no assets in Ms Kostov's bankrupt estate, its duty to act commercially and in the interest of Ms Kostov's creditors and legal advice concerning prospects of success. The fact that offers were made by Amelie Housing to Ms Kostov in August 2018 (for $8,000) and October 2018 (for $10,000) to settle litigation commenced by Ms Kostov against Amelie Housing is irrelevant not least because Ms Kostov refused to enter into a deed of settlement exonerating Amelie Housing and its staff against all claims, which was a condition of the offers. Those offers were plainly made to put a stop to Ms Kostov's persistent litigation and not (as Ms Kostov has asserted) a reflection of the merit of the litigation. Ms Peterson had no obligation to advise the Official Trustee that those offers had been made and refused by Ms Kostov. This is the effect of Paul Shaw's response to Ms Kostov's complaints to the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy set out in Mr Shaw's letter to her dated 15 February 2019 (see [46(6)] below) and he was not wrong. 28 Seventh, Ms Kostov is wrong in her belief that s 60(4) of the Bankruptcy Act applied to the conduct of proceedings she commenced against Amelie Housing on 3 October 2018. Those proceedings were commenced after she became bankrupt and they related to a tenancy agreement and removal of Ms Kostov's chattels to storage. The proceedings were therefore clearly not commenced before she became bankrupt and they were not an action for "personal injury or wrong", both preconditions to the operation of s 60(4) of the Bankruptcy Act. The fact that Ms Kostov was locked out from the premises the subject of the tenancy on 1 June 2018 and her chattels removed to storage before her bankruptcy has no bearing on the operation of s 60(4). Any right Ms Kostov had to commence proceedings arising out of events which occurred before her bankruptcy vested in the Official Trustee under s 58 of the Bankruptcy Act when the sequestration order was made so that she had no standing to commence those proceedings and her cause of action was not for "personal injury or wrong" within s 116(2)(g). Ms Kostov has already been told that by Fagan J in Kostov v Amelie Housing (NCAT Appeal) [2019] NSWSC 16 at [11]-[16] and in Mr Shaw's letter (see [46(6)] below). 29 Eighth, having regard to these matters and the fact that Ms Kostov did not propose another trustee who had consented to act, the Court was not satisfied that the Official Trustee should be removed as the trustee of her bankrupt estate. 30 Ninth, the Court accepted that it was appropriate to make the order sought by the respondents that any other proceedings which Ms Kostov may bring against any of the respondents for causes of action or relief which are the same or substantially the same as that sought in these proceedings should be stayed until she has paid the costs of these proceedings. That order was made having regard to Ms Kostov's conduct in these proceedings and a similar pattern of conduct which is evident when she litigated many of the same issues in proceedings before Robertson J and against Amelie Housing in NCAT and the Supreme Court of New South Wales (see Kostov v Amelie Housing [2018] NSWSC 1800 (Fagan J) and judgments cited therein and Kostov v Amelie Housing (NCAT Appeal) (Fagan J)). 31 Having regard to the nature of some of the relief sought, the Court has considered it necessary to set out many emails and other submissions made by Ms Kostov in relation to the conduct of a number of people, including but not limited to Mr Hedge, Ms Bondin and Ms Peterson, in which Ms Kostov has asserted serious misconduct or unethical conduct on their behalf. The fact that that material is set out should not be understood as acceptance by the Court of Ms Kostov's assertions contained in it. In particular, the Court does not accept that there is any evidence before the Court on which it could reasonably be concluded that any of Mr Hedge, Colin Biggers & Paisley, Ms Bondin, Mr Arnold or Ms Peterson lied to or otherwise misled Ms Kostov or harassed her or that any of them otherwise engaged in any form of misconduct in relation to her, the administration of her bankrupt estate or these proceedings. Having regard to a number of statements made by Ms Kostov in her evidence and submissions concerning Mr Easton and his legal advisors, it should also be said that the facts that Mr Easton chose to file a creditor's petition rather than garnish Ms Kostov's wages, that his solicitors sought to establish her residential address for the purpose of personal service of that petition on her, and that his legal advisors indicated that she would be required for cross-examination on her evidence in the proceedings before Robertson J are not evidence of either improper purpose or harassment.

[3]

Amended application 32 Ms Kostov sought the following relief by an application lodged in this Court on 3 January 2019 (accepted as filed on 15 January 2019), and subsequently amended with leave on 23 April 2019 (amended application), and supported by affidavits of Ms Kostov sworn on 14 December 2018, 8 February 2019 and 29 April 2019. 33 First, that the sequestration order made on 18 July 2018 be annulled pursuant to s 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act. Ms Kostov says she is entitled to that relief because she was diagnosed with a mental health condition in 2017 which she had suffered since 2015. Ms Kostov said that her medical records confirm that she was suffering from that condition when she commenced the proceedings which founded the judgment debt which was claimed in Mr Easton's creditor's petition. She said that she was too unwell to attend when those proceedings were dismissed in 2016 and a costs order made. She says she did not participate in the costs assessment process leading to the judgment debt for the same reason and that she "does not even know, if the amount, ordered to pay, is correct, and, it is likely inflated". Ms Kostov provided no citation, but it appears she relied on the circumstances referred to in the New South Wales Court of Appeal's decision in Kostov v YPOL Pty Ltd at [3]-[9]. 34 Ms Kostov says that due to her inability to participate in the proceedings in which Mr Easton obtained the costs judgment on which the creditor's petition relied, the sequestration order should be null and void. In her affidavit dated 29 April 2020 Ms Kostov said that she enquired with the Supreme Court of New South Wales as to any review options she had regarding the costs order and went on to say "however, the reality is, I have already now, lived as a "bankrupt", for 12 months, and suffered the disadvantage of such - and a review of such, would only lead, to more costs". 35 Ms Kostov provided written submissions on 7 August 2019 (after the time provided in the Court's orders for her to do so and without leave). Ms Kostov submitted as follows: (1) She had not been provided with a hearing in relation to her bankruptcy as she was declared bankrupt in her absence and therefore had an automatic right of review. (2) Due to illness, she did not participate in the costs assessment process relating to the judgment debt on which the bankruptcy petition was based. (3) Apart from the judgment debt, she only had a credit card debt of $4,000, which she paid off monthly. (4) She said that she had offered Mr Easton the opportunity to garnish her wages but that offer was "met with silence". (5) She expressed concern that she had been required for cross-examination (the Court infers, in the proceedings before Robertson J) "on a very basic matter" and characterised this as harassment. (6) She complained that Mr Easton had spent more "to keep me bankrupt" than he was owed. She submitted that that was evidence that Mr Easton had pursued a sequestration order for an improper purpose and to assist one of his employees in a personal matter. (7) Ms Kostov said: I remind this court, that it is incredibly serious, for someone with Law/Commerce degrees, to be declared bankrupt - it in essence, thwarts many of my career opportunities, and I submit, to a certain degree, this is why, Mr Easton has been so aggressive also. (8) Ms Kostov made a scandalous submission concerning the association between Mr Easton's firm and a member of chambers staff of a Judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in connection with the making of a vexatious litigant order against her. (9) Ms Kostov declined to file an amended application substituting the Official Trustee for AFSA as the respondent on the basis that she considered that AFSA was the appropriate respondent. 36 Without leave, on 9 August 2019, Ms Kostov sent to the Court emails containing assertions about the conduct of Mr Easton's law firm and other lawyers instructed by him in connection with the allegations referred to above and in relation to her failure to obtain pro bono assistance pursuant to a referral made on 4 December 2018 in the proceedings for review of the sequestration order before Robertson J. The email chain included an email to Ms Kostov from Robertson J's associate on 4 December 2018 in which Ms Kostov was advised that the hearing on 12 December 2018 would proceed. That email was sent in response to an email from Ms Kostov asking for an adjournment for a week due to "work commitments" and a medical appointment, or that she be given leave to appear by telephone between appointments. An affidavit attached to Ms Kostov's email dated 9 August 2019 disclosed that the purpose of a law firm acting for Mr Easton in seeking to establish her residential address was so that the bankruptcy petition could be served on her. 37 It is also convenient to note at this point that in submissions dated 25 June 2020 (after the date specified in orders made on 9 March 2020 and without leave), Ms Kostov submitted that: (1) She had applied to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for review of the costs order in Mr Easton's favour and she believed that further documents "require to be submitted" which she would follow up "this week". She submitted (without evidence) that the costs are "substantially inflated" and "actual costs, are likely closer, to under $20,000". (2) While she was being paid a weekly income, she suggested to Mr Easton that he could simply garnish her wages if money was what was required, because there was no benefit to anyone to bankrupt Ms Kostov. She says that, instead, Mr Easton briefed lawyers to "keep [her] bankrupt", likely out of spite linked to his employee, and therefore his aggressiveness in bankrupting her was driven by an "ulterior purpose". She says that she was solvent during those times and bankruptcy could have been avoided. (3) Ms Kostov proposed that, to resolve the matter, costs should be reassessed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Once that had occurred, if the issue of payment is to be determined, in light of new COVID-19 relief, she should be given six months to pay, if the assessed costs exceed $20,000. Her bankruptcy should therefore be annulled. (4) Other debts (being those referred to in Ms Bondin's affidavit which are summarised later in these reasons) should be addressed as follows. The credit card debt to the National Australia Bank (NAB) was automatically cancelled when she became bankrupt and, before that time, she had never defaulted on payment. The Credit Corp debt related to a disputed Telstra debt which was waived in June 2019. In relation to the debt to Fairfax Media, it has since been acquired by Nine Entertainment and her initial discussions indicate that Nine Entertainment has no intention to pursue those costs. 38 This position was further addressed in an affidavit which was attached to an email which Ms Kostov sent to the Court without leave on 6 July 2020 (see [142] below) and in emails sent to the Court on 7 July 2020 which provided submissions concerning Ms Kostov's solvency (see [146] below). 39 Ms Kostov also relied on a newspaper report published in the "Prince George Citizen" on 13 December 2014 concerning a decision by a Canadian court to discharge the bankruptcy of a woman who suffered from mental ill-health at the time she was made bankrupt. 40 Second, Ms Kostov sought an order that if the bankruptcy cannot be annulled, her bankruptcy be discharged after a 12 month period in accordance with recommendations made by Justice Connect on 27 May 2016 in response to the Improving bankruptcy and insolvency laws proposals paper issued by the Commonwealth Treasury. The Court notes that that recommendation was not taken up and the Bankruptcy Act was not amended in that manner. 41 Ms Kostov submitted that, although she has made enquiries with the Supreme Court of New South Wales about review options in relation to the costs judgment on which Mr Easton relied, in line with the Justice Connect submission, the reality is that she has already suffered the disadvantages of bankruptcy to the extent that she has not had access to credit and must use weekly income for all costs. Ms Kostov submitted that that hardship is not fair where, as here, she is not at fault due to the illness that she suffered. Ms Kostov says that her circumstances are exceptional enough to warrant an early discharge from bankruptcy. Ms Kostov did not identify the source of the Court's power to make an order of that kind. 42 Third, Ms Kostov sought an order that AFSA be removed as trustee, and a new trustee be appointed. It is notable that this claim was not pleaded in the originating application filed in January 2019. It emerged from her affidavit sworn on 8 February 2020 and it was then pleaded in her amended application dated 23 April 2019. Ms Kostov did not identify the source of the Court's power to make such an order. 43 Based on Ms Kostov's affidavit sworn on 8 February 2019 and its attachments, it appears that this claim was based on the Official Trustee's decision recorded in a letter dated 11 December 2018 on AFSA letterhead sent by Mr Arnold, an acting senior case manager for the Official Trustee, to Peterson Haines Lawyers who acted for Amelie Housing (Official Trustee's December 2018 letter). That letter was attached to the affidavit and it stated: Proceedings: Adriana Kostov v Amelie Housing (File No: 18/45987) Bankrupt Estate of Adriana Kostov - NSW 2814/18/4 Adriana Kostov became bankrupt on 18 July 2018 and the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy is administering the estate. The Official Trustee's certificate of appointment is enclosed for reference. I refer to Carrie Peterson's email to the Official Trustee of 26 November 2018, informing the trustee of the orders made by His Honour Fagan J in respect of the Official Trustee's position on Ms Kostov's appeal from the decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The Official Trustee was not a party to these proceedings, nor does it seek to be joined to the proceedings in any capacity. Based on the nature of the claim upon which the proceedings at hand are founded upon, prospects of success and commercial interests of the bankrupt estate, the Official Trustee is not in a position to prosecute these proceedings. 44 In her affidavit sworn on 8 February 2019, Ms Kostov complains that, without consulting her, the Official Trustee made that decision and Mr Arnold provided documents to the Court. Ms Kostov also complains that the Official Trustee communicated with the lawyers for Amelie Housing "behind her back" and made the decision not to adopt the proceedings she had commenced against Amelie Housing. This was in circumstances where Ms Peterson of Peterson Haines Lawyers, acting for Amelie Housing, had made an offer to settle the proceedings by the payment of $10,000 to her by email sent on 8 October 2018, a copy of which was attached to the affidavit. Ms Kostov notes that she refused to sign a deed of release because it would exonerate Amelie Housing and its staff from further claims concerning how the staff dealt with her personal effects when she was locked out of the social housing she had been occupying on their premises on 1 June 2018. Ms Kostov alleged that the strike out of her claim was obtained by the manipulation of Amelie Housing's lawyer who did not advise the Official Trustee of the offer of settlement it had made, and that AFSA failed in its duty to act fairly and impartially. Ms Kostov says that her claims against Amelie Housing did not vest in the Official Trustee as they were personal in nature so that s 60(4) of the Bankruptcy Act did not apply to them. Ms Kostov concluded her affidavit at [21]-[22] by saying: In essence, I have been denied justice, my basic human rights affected, and my health, affected by the unconscionable conduct of AFSA. Based on the conduct above, and the blatant breach of the Trustee's duties, which has caused serious harm, I respectfully ask the Court, to allow me to appoint, a new trustee, with immediate effect. 45 Ms Kostov has not nominated a trustee to replace the Official Trustee.

[4]

Official Trustee's original report 46 In anticipation that the Court would direct the provision of a report in relation to the conduct of the bankruptcy in accordance with r 7.06(2) of the Federal Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2016 (Cth), on 6 March 2019, AFSA filed an affidavit sworn by Mr Arnold on 6 March 2019 (original report). The original report stated that: (1) On 4 December 2018, Mr Arnold sent to Ms Kostov an email attaching correspondence in which her obligation to make out and file a statement of affairs under s 54 of the Bankruptcy Act was outlined. The Official Trustee requested the Official Receiver to issue a notice under s 77CA of the Bankruptcy Act relating to Ms Kostov's failure to file a statement of affairs and on 22 January 2019, the Official Receiver informed the Official Trustee that the notice had been served on Ms Kostov. (2) Ms Kostov had been a director of four companies. (3) Enquiries with major financial institutions in July 2018 indicated that Ms Kostov held a visa card with a debit balance of $3,873.41 and a savings account with a balance of $53.23 at the date of her bankruptcy on 18 July 2018. Ms Kostov also had an account with ING with a balance of $5,396.52 which she had since withdrawn or spent. (4) Real property searches, a personal name search at the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) and a search of the Personal Property Securities Register had been conducted but did not reveal any further information in relation to Ms Kostov's examinable affairs. (5) On 1 February 2019, Fagan J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed Ms Kostov's appeal from the NCAT Appeal proceedings relating to termination of a tenancy agreement between Ecclesia Housing Limited (which by then had come to be known as Amelie Housing) and Ms Kostov for non-payment of rent and the subsequent issue of a warrant authorising the Sheriff to obtain possession of the property the subject of the tenancy agreement: Kostov v Amelie Housing (NCAT Appeal). (6) Ms Kostov made a complaint about the Official Trustee's decision made on 15 November 2018 not to adopt Ms Kostov's appeal in proceedings NSW 2814/18/4 in NCAT against Amelie Housing. A review of that decision was conducted by Mr Shaw, the National Manger of Regulation and Enforcement, on behalf of the Inspector-General. The review concluded that the Official Trustee acted appropriately. Mr Shaw advised Ms Kostov of the decision by letter dated 15 February 2019, a copy of which was annexed to the affidavit (Mr Shaw's letter). (7) The Official Trustee had not identified any realisable assets that would be adequate to support a dividend to creditors of the estate and consequently it had not taken steps to call for proofs of debt. (8) The Official Trustee had incurred expenses of $127.67 and would incur a further $8,000 approximately in connection with Ms Kostov's application to this Court. If Ms Kostov was successful in her application to annul her bankruptcy under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act, the Official Trustee would be entitled to remuneration of $4,000 and a realisation charge of $280.

[5]

Case management hearings on 13 March 2019 and 2 May 2019 47 In correspondence concerning the timing of the first case management hearing in these proceedings, the Court made efforts to hold the case management hearing at a time suitable to Ms Kostov. The Court refused to allow Ms Kostov to appear by telephone as she had advised the Court that she worked in Sydney's central business district. Ms Kostov did not attend the first case management hearing held on 13 March 2019. However, the Court provided a copy of the transcript of the hearing to her so that she could be made aware of the following matters: (1) AFSA made submissions indicating that it was not the proper party to the proceedings but the Official Trustee was. (2) The Court noted that it would be relevant to the Court's consideration of whether to grant relief annulling Ms Kostov's bankruptcy whether she had filed a statement of affairs (as required by s 54 of the Bankruptcy Act), which she had not yet done, and whether she was in a position to demonstrate that she was able to pay her debts as and when they fall due. (3) The Court noted that Ms Kostov had not identified the source of the Court's power to make an order discharging her bankruptcy after 12 months. (4) The Court noted that Ms Kostov's application sought removal of the Official Trustee as her trustee but she had not nominated another trustee to fulfil that role. 48 Following that hearing and after consultation with Ms Kostov in relation to the form of orders, the Court made orders on 15 March 2019 granting leave to Ms Kostov to amend her application by 2 April 2019 and for notification of her application to all known creditors. Ms Kostov did not notify her creditors, but AFSA did. Ms Kostov filed her amended application on 23 April 2019. 49 On 2 May 2019, a further case management hearing was held. At that hearing, a Ms J Lau appeared "as agent for the applicant", a somewhat surprising outcome since it did not appear that Ms Kostov then held a practising certificate. Ms Lau indicated that she was not aware that Ms Kostov did not hold a practising certificate and that she did not intend to go on the record as acting for Ms Kostov. Ms Selim, who appeared for AFSA, advised that creditors had been notified of the proceedings and were observing but did not intend to appear. The Court again gave Ms Kostov leave to amend her originating application to substitute the Official Trustee for AFSA as the respondent and made timetabling orders for the filing of submissions (Ms Kostov by 1 July 2019 and AFSA by 8 July 2019) and listed the hearing of Ms Kostov's application for 16 July 2019 at 10.15 am.

[8]

Adjournment application, submissions and hearing 54 However, on 22 July 2019, Ms Kostov again sought adjournment of the hearing on the basis of a medical certificate dated 21 July 2019 indicating that she would not be fit to attend a hearing between that date and 26 July 2019. 55 On 23 July 2019, the Court made orders: (a) that Ms Kostov provide a certificate from her doctor as to when, in the doctor's view, Ms Kostov would be able to participate in a hearing of her application; (b) giving Ms Kostov leave to file an amended originating application to name the Official Trustee as the respondent in lieu of AFSA by 31 July 2019; and (c) giving Ms Kostov leave to file further evidence and submissions by 31 July 2019. 56 Ms Kostov filed submissions on 7 August 2019 and made further submissions by an email sent to the Court on 9 August 2019 (see [35] and [36] above). 57 On 13 September 2019, Ms Kostov provided a medical certificate indicating that she would be fit to participate in proceedings from 24 September 2019. On 23 September 2019, Ms Kostov advised the Court's Registry that she would participate in a hearing on 28 October 2019 or later. The matter was listed for hearing at 10.30 am on 28 October 2019. 58 By emails between Ms Kostov, the Court's Registry and Mr Hedge on 23 and 24 October 2019: (1) Ms Kostov sought a stay of the proceedings on the basis that the Attorney General of New South Wales had, by notice of motion filed on 21 May 2019 in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, sought orders that Ms Kostov be declared a "person under a legal incapacity" within the meaning of Part 7, Div 4 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) and that a tutor be appointed. As a result she had decided to seek treatment and settle elsewhere "pending a few factors". Ms Kostov sought a "stay" of her proceedings and foreshadowed the need to transfer the proceedings to another registry. (2) The Court's Registry advised Ms Kostov that if she sought to stay the proceedings she should file an interlocutory application. No such application was filed but Ms Kostov asked that her application to this Court be transferred to the Melbourne Registry of the Court and that it be set down for hearing in November 2019. (3) Mr Hedge advised the Court and Ms Kostov that the respondent opposed any adjournment and that if Ms Kostov did not appear at the hearing on 28 October 2019, the respondent would "ask the court to either dismiss the Proceedings or otherwise refuse the adjournment and deal with the matter to bring it to finality". (4) The Court advised the parties that it refused to adjourn the hearing, noting that Ms Kostov had provided evidence that she was fit to participate in a hearing on that date. The Court advised that arrangements could be made for Ms Kostov to participate by video-conference from the Melbourne Registry. On 25 October 2019, Ms Kostov advised that "she cannot commit to such". 59 Ms Kostov failed to appear at the hearing on 28 October 2019. On 28 October 2019, the Court made orders under r 9.05 of the Federal Court Rules joining the Official Trustee as a party and dismissing the proceedings pursuant to r 30.21, with orders that Ms Kostov pay the respondents' costs and that a copy of the transcript which disclosed the Court's reasons for making those orders be made available to Ms Kostov upon her application. A copy of those orders was provided to Ms Kostov by email.

[10]

Further amended application 63 On 28 April 2020, Ms Kostov sent an email to the Court's Registry which was copied to Mr Hedge and my associate. Attached to the email was (among other things) an unsealed amended application naming only AFSA as a respondent (further amended application). The further amended application was uploaded to the Court's electronic court file on 25 May 2020 Among other things, the email stated that: I could not find my original word version of my application, as I no longer have my computer I previously used, so, per ATTACHMENT 1, I have drafted a new Amended Application, to supplement that already filed, which I hope will suffice in these circumstances. … Her Honour will note I have asked for Interim Relief on my Amended Application, and I suggest perhaps a Directions Hearing be scheduled for such next week, if Her Honour feels appropriate. 64 Also attached to the email were: (1) A copy of the November 2018 letter. The letter was copied to Ms Kostov and Amelie Housing care of Peterson Haines Lawyers. On behalf of the Official Trustee, Mr Arnold said (as written): Adriana Kostov became bankrupt on 18 July 2018 and the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy is administering the estate. The Official Trustee's certificate of appointment is enclosed for reference. The Official Trustee is aware of the proceedings initiated by Ms Kostov regarding alleged breaches of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW) by the respondent in this matter. The Official Trustee is not a party to these proceedings, nor does it seek to be joined as a party to these proceedings. As Ms Kostov's claim is not a "personal injury or wrong" for the purposes of exempting the claim under s 116(2)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth), Ms Kostov's claim is in substance, a chose in action which vested in the Official Trustee as after-acquired property. Consequently, the Official Trustee's position is that Ms Kostov cannot, whilst she remains undischarged from bankruptcy, initiate or continue the proceedings. The Official Trustee further notes that because the proceedings were initiated after Ms Kostov's bankrutptcy, s 60(4) of the Bankrutpcy Act 1966 (Cth) is not applicable, and therefore the Official Trustee is not required to make an election whether to abandon or continue the proceedings. Nevertheless, in light of the nature of Ms Kostov's claim, and the statutory duty of the Official Trustee to act in the interests of the estate in a commercially sound manner, the Official Trustee is not in a positon to continue or maintain the proceedings. This decision is made with a view to minimise the costs, not only to creditors of the bankrupt estate, but also of the other parties to these proceedings. No disrespect is intended towards the Tribunal or those other parties. A copy of this letter has been issued to the Applicant and Respondent, who are at liberty to make further submissions in respect of the trustee's position letter and the proceedings generally. Should the Tribunal consider it necessary for the Official Trustee to make an appearance by telephone with respect to the proceedings or the content of this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me on the details listed below. (2) Email correspondence on 9 November 2018 between Mr Arnold and Ms Peterson in which Ms Peterson queried when the Official Trustee would make a decision in relation to the proceedings NSW 2814/18/4 and Mr Arnold indicated that he would revert as soon as possible with the Official Trustee's position. Also attached was an email dated 21 November 2018 in which Ms Peterson advised Mr Arnold of orders made by Fagan J in proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and asked Mr Arnold to advise whether the Official Trustee wishes to prosecute those proceedings (November 2018 emails). Copies of these emails and the Peterson December 2018 letter referred to below had also been attached to Ms Kostov's affidavit sworn on 8 February 2019. (3) A copy of a letter dated 11 December 2018 from Ms Peterson on behalf of Amelie Housing to the Official Trustee in relation to NCAT proceedings NSW 2814/18/4 (Peterson December 2018 letter). The letter noted that the proceedings were commenced after Ms Kostov became bankrupt and asked the Official Trustee to indicate in writing whether it intends to "prospect" or discontinue the action. (4) A copy of the Official Trustee's December 2018 letter (see [43] above). (5) A letter dated 1 August 2018 from Ms Peterson to Ms Kostov containing an offer of settlement of Ms Kostov's claim against Amelie Housing for $8,000 provided a deed of settlement was signed before their next appearance in the Local Court of New South Wales on 2 August 2018 (Peterson August 2018 letter). 65 The further amended application claimed that "the Respondent" had breached its duty to act in a proper manner and should therefore be removed as trustee should "the Applicant's bankruptcy be upheld". In what might be regarded as particulars of this claim, Ms Kostov relied on: (1) The November 2018 letter. Ms Kostov said this was an "improper application of bankruptcy law" by the Official Trustee's wrongful interference with a personal injury claim. (2) The November 2018 emails, the Peterson December 2018 letter, the Official Trustee's December 2018 letter and the Peterson August 2018 letter. Under the heading "Excluding Applicant from Material Legal Communications", Ms Kostov submitted that, due to AFSA's "wrongful interference in personal injury proceedings, which occurred prior to the 18 July bankruptcy, and should have been captured by s 60(4) exclusion, the Respondent" had caused her "substantial financial loss, exceeding the $10,000 offered on 8 October 2018". Ms Kostov further submitted that this loss was compounded by the Official Trustee's failure to include her in key communications and "liaising only with an external solicitor, who had an interest, in having the Official Trustee, interfere, in the personal injury matter". Ms Kostov submitted that that was a "serious breach of duty by the Respondent, warranting their removal as Trustee". Ms Kostov complained that: (a) She had not been copied into the correspondence between Mr Arnold and Ms Peterson in November and December 2018 and she was unsure whether there had been telephone communications between Mr Arnold and Ms Peterson. (b) Ms Peterson did not, in her direct communications with "the Respondent" disclose that, such was the seriousness of Ms Kostov's "personal injury claim", that Ms Peterson offered $8,000 on 1 August 2018 and $10,000 on 8 October 2018 in an attempt to resolve those proceedings. Ms Kostov said that she "could not accept such funds, as far more expenses and damage had been incurred". (3) The "respondent's" refusal to conduct an internal review of the Official Trustee's decision made on 15 November 2018 (which the Court takes to be the decision notified to NCAT in the November 2018 letter) and the respondent's decision to engage Colin Biggers & Paisley to act on its behalf in proceedings commenced by Ms Kostov in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in February 2020 and to make submissions that Ms Kostov had no right to a review of that decision by the Official Trustee and that the AAT had no jurisdiction. This complaint was made under the heading "Respondent Rejection of Review Request and Forced Litigation". Ms Kostov submitted that "this behaviour by the Respondent, and the breakdown of the relationship of trust and transparency between the parties, warrants the removal, of the Respondent, as Trustee, should the bankruptcy be deemed valid". (4) The failure of "the respondent" to respond to requests made by Ms Kostov to provide copies of all correspondence between "themselves and Ms Peterson" including telephone notes and confirmation of whether a pre-existing commercial or personal relationship exists between the respondent and Ms Peterson. (5) The respondent's failure to appoint a case manager with a legal background in relation to Ms Kostov's matter on the basis that the current case manager had "no understanding, of how serious, the Applicant being excluded from legal communications, is". 66 The interim relief sought by Ms Kostov was: (1) The Federal Court set a hearing to review the respondent's decision made on 15 November 2018. (2) The respondent provide copies of all communications between Ms Peterson and the respondent and disclose any pre-existing personal or commercial relationship with Ms Peterson or Amelie Housing. (3) The Court direct that Ms Kostov be allocated a case manager within the respondent with legal qualifications. 67 By a further email dated 28 April 2020 to the Court and copied to the respondents' solicitors, Ms Kostov also sought to rely on two statements which she says were made by Ms Peterson denying any fraud in relation to the removal of Ms Kostov's personal effects from the premises at the time of her eviction which were put in storage. Ms Kostov has not put into evidence any primary document from which such comments might have been sourced.

[11]

Updated report 68 On 11 May 2020, the solicitor for the respondents filed an affidavit sworn by Melissa Bondin, a senior case manager at AFSA. Ms Bondin noted AFSA's receipt of the further amended application and the fact that it had not been filed (the amended application was uploaded to the Court's electronic file and became accessible on 25 May 2020). 69 Ms Bondin stated that the affidavit responded to the Court's order made on 9 March 2020 that the Official Trustee file an updated report pursuant to r 7.06(2) of the Federal Court (Bankruptcy) Rules by 11 May 2020. By way of update, Ms Bondin deposed in her affidavit that (as at that date): (1) Ms Kostov had failed to file her statement of affairs in accordance with s 54(1) of the Bankruptcy Act; (2) The Official Trustee had conducted further property searches, ASIC personal name searches and Personal Property Securities Register searches which did not reveal any additional information; (3) Ms Kostov did not hold any credit cards with banks apart from those noted in the original report; (4) The bankrupt estate currently had four creditors which were owed as follows: (a) Credit Corp Group, owed $837.00 (Veda Search); (b) Fairfax Media, owed $38,653.00; (c) Jeffrey Lind Easton, owed $24,754.40; and (d) NAB, owed $3,873.00. (5) Ms Kostov made an application to the AAT on 20 February 2020 to overturn the decision made by Mr Shaw set out in Mr Shaw's letter. The Official Trustee provided written submissions to the AAT on 26 March 2020. Ms Kostov withdrew that application on 26 March 2020 by email. (6) The Official Trustee had not identified any realisable assets that would be adequate to support a dividend to creditors of the estate and it had therefore not taken steps to call for proofs of debt. (7) The Official Trustee had incurred general expenses of $187.68 and legal expenses of $41,007.78 in the administration of the bankrupt estate. It estimated that a further $15,000 (exclusive of GST) will be incurred in relation to Ms Kostov's application, assuming a hearing occurs on the scheduled date and the matter is dealt with at that time. (8) The Official Trustee would also be entitled to remuneration of $25,862.49 and realisation charges of $10,174.46 (in aggregate $36,036.95). 70 On 14 May 2020, the Court sent an email to the parties, noting that Ms Kostov had recently sent a number of emails to the Court which would be treated as submissions and confirming that Ms Kostov had until 28 May 2020 to file her submissions. On the same day, Ms Kostov responded by email addressed to the Court's Registry and copied to AFSA's lawyers saying (as written): Can you please advise Her Honour, that in light of the serious issues to which I have raised, and further, my request for interim relief, which further has been ignored by this Court, there will be no further submissions from me on this matter. I most certainly am not so foolish as to be used as a cash cow for AFSA, which is evidently what has occurred in this matter. The Federal Court of NSW, twice, has denied myself, the basic procedural right, to have an Annulment Application heard, both orders, made in my abscence. The Federal Court of NSW, in denying myself this basic right, further placing myself in an erroneous position, of copies costs, being claimed, in a matter where, this Court is at fault, by making Sequestration Orders, in my abscence. Therefore, an alternative approach, will be taken, in relation to the Bankruptcy Annulment. I still however do wish to remove AFSA as Trustee for the reasons contained in my filed submissions. My view on this, is such should also be determined in an alternative forum. As such, I propose this matter be stayed, so as to cease AFSA continuing to use this Court as a joke. There will be no further correspondence from myself on this matter, I will leave such in Her Honour's hands to determine what is appropriate in terms of the application to remove AFSA as Trustee.

[12]

Interim application 71 On 21 May 2020, Ms Kostov sent a document entitled "interim application" to the Court's Registry which was accepted as filed on 23 May 2020 and an unexecuted affidavit of Ms Kostov dated 18 May 2020. The interim application was given a return date of 16 June 2020 at 10.15 am, being the same time as Ms Kostov's other applications. 72 By the interim application, Ms Kostov sought orders as follows (as written): 1. Proceedings stayed as an abuse of process by the Respondent until: a) Respondent Itemize and prove costs declared in Affidavit of Ms Melissa Bondin of 11 May 2020; 2. The costs noted in 1 above, if verified, be transferred to the Applicant's claim the Respondent be removed as Trustee for the purposes of bankruptcy. 3. Applicant's Bankruptcy Annulment, be transferred to a Judicial Review application before the Court, to avoid Respondents claiming costs for improper purpose 4. The Respondant provide: a) All communications between Ms Carrie Peterson (and Peterson Haines Lawyers) and Amelie Housing, with the Respondent, and the Official Trustee; b) A declaration as to any commercial or personal relationship between Ms Carrie Peterson and/or Amelie Housing; 5. The Decision dated November 2018, of the Official Trustee in relation Amelie Housing and the Respondent be submitted for Judicial Review, as it involves a decision-maker, by an officer of the Commonwealth, and therefore reviewable as an error of law. 73 The interim application was supported by an unsigned affidavit of Ms Kostov dated 18 May 2020 and filed on 21 May 2020. In the Court's view, the content of the affidavit is not evidence, but rather submissions and the Court considered it on that basis. The document provided as follows (as written): Conduct of Respondent: Abuse of Process of Court, Exorbitant Costs 3. I am very concerned, at the conduct of the Respondent, and the conduct of the proceedings on general, something, which should be very simple, is turning into, an overly expensive exercise, the Respondent, abusing the Court. 4. I simply, had attended the Registry in 2019, to explain my predicament, and ask the Court, what was the most simple, and cost effective way, to review the sequestration orders made in my abscence. 5. I was advised, that an application, with AFSA as Respondent, was the correct approach, so I followed such. 6. On 12 May 2020, I received an Affidavit from the Respondent employee, Ms Melissa Bondin, alleging, the Respondent had spent nearly $40,000 in legal costs to date, and further, would spend, another $15,000 if the matter would progress to Hearing. 7. I am perplexed how such is possible, when, Mr Easton himself, who aggressively sought to bankrupt myself, only claimed costs, of over $5000. 8. Further, the alleged amount of bankruptcy, was only $24,000, and, will likely be less, as such costs, were unverified by me, as I did not participate in the costs assessment process. 9. What AFSA have done, is attempt to claim $70,000 in a matter, of which, they were simply meant to be a "friend" of the Court, and claimed costs, which exceed the amount of bankruptcy, and further, that of the petitioners costs. 10. Such is absurd, and contradicts the advice I was given by the Registrar, that having AFSA as Respondent, was the most cost effective, a d simple way, to manage proceedings. Request for matter to be stayed, costs assessed, and Annulment Application heard by way of Judicial Review 11. In light of the above, I ask these proceedings be immediately stayed, so AFSA do not claim further extortionate costs. 12. I also ask, the Court order AFSA provide proof of such costs, which can be verified by the Court. 13. I further submit, the question as to the review of my bankruptcy, should have been a Judicial Review application, because, the former Judicial Officer, had made no assessment of my case, in my abscence. 14. Such, having the Federal Court as Respondent, likely would have been the cost effective and simply way to review my bankruptcy, as I highly doubt, the current position, of AFSA claiming 10 times the original costs of the petioner, and further, costs which exceed the purported debt owed, would be foreshadowed by the Court. 15. I also believe it important the Court ascertain who is giving instructions in this matter, as I highly doubt, such is being claimed by the AFSA Executive. 16. I submit once these costs are assessed as true and correct, such, can be transferred to the separate matter, of removing AFSA as Trustee. 17. Whilst this occurs, it is important, my bankruptcy annulment, be properly heard by this Court, by way of Judicial Review, which is simple, cost effective, and will not place me in the position I am now, where a Government department, is abusing the process of the Courts. Request for Further Information from AFSA: 18. I also request all communications, between AFSA and Ms Carrie Peterson, Solicitor did Amelie Housing, if which, I am not privy to. I ask for such, because, it was brought to my attention, after the fact, that Ms Carrie Peterson, had been communicating direct with Case Manager for AFSA, Mr Terence Arnold, without including myself in communications. 19 As a result of such, a decision was made, to my detriment, by the Official Trustee, and to the benefit of Amelie Housing, the Official Trustee, not communicating with, or consulting me, throughout the decision making process. Amelie Housing, had a vested interest in having a particular decision made, I should have been included in this process, as my rights were affected, I was not. 20. I also ask the Court, for a declaration from AFSA, of any personal or commercial relationship between themselves, and Ms Carrie Peterson. I understand Ms Peterson had written papers on bankruptcy law in the past, do sydp6, she does have a pre-existing relationship with AFSA. Request for Judicial Review of Trustee Decision 21. I ask this Court note, that I intend to file a Judicial Review Application, to review the decision of the Official Trustee made in November 2018. My reason for asking such, is, that I had sought to review the said decision in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, only, to have the Respondent use CBP Lawyers, to aggressively strike out, what should have been, a very simple, and no cost review of a decision. I therefore advised the AAT that in light of the conduct of the Respondent, the appropriate course to take, was to have this decision reviewed, by the Federal Court. 22. The decision related to the Trustee, wrongly interfering in a personal injury matter, of which, had commenced in June 2018, prior, to the purported bankruptcy which occurred in my abscence on 18 July 2018. Therefore, Section 60(4) of the Bankruptcy Act, should have applied, whereby, such a personal injury matter, was exempt, from interference by the Respondent, as The matter, was a serious matter, with Ms Carrie Peterson, offering myself $8000 on 1 August 2018 to settle the matter, and then $10,000 on 8 October 2018, both amounts, I could not accept, as the costs and damage, far exceeded, those amounts. 23. Without my knowledge, as pleaded in paragraph 18 and 19 above, Ms Carrie Peterson, had been liasing direct with the Respondent on this matter, not including me in communication, which is a breach of the basic practice of the Courts, of which, Ms Peterson, a Solicitor, and AFSA, a government entity, would know. She did not disclose, that she had offered myself, the sums of compensation, pleaded in 22 above. 24. The Respondent (and Official Trustee) came to the decision, that this matter was not exempt pursuant to Section 60(4). They came to this decision, after consulting direct with Ms Peterson, and excluding myself. 25. As I detail above, my simple attempt to have the decision reviewed in the AAT had been aggressively attacked by the Respondent, for reasons unknown. It is highly improper conduct on behalf of the Respondent, which had caused myself significant financial harm, exposure to fraud and loss of property, and I therefore seek relief from these Courts, to have such a decision, reviewed 26 The misconduct of the Respondent is serious, and it is entirely inappropriate these current proceedings continue, until the interim relief I ask, is dealt with. The issue of my purported bankruptcy, most certainly should not have resulted in myself now being exposed to extortionate and unverified cost claims, which far exceed, the initial claim, of the petitioner.

[14]

Tuesday, 9 June 2020 76 At 11.47 am, the Court's Registry sent an email to the parties advising that this matter was listed at 9.30 am on 10 June 2020 in the return of subpoena list. The email said that it attached a screenshot of material produced "as of 9 June 2020 at 11.34 am". The "screenshot" is from a page of the Court's electronic filing system that advised that the documents were produced on a USB stick which was held in Registry. 77 At 6.07 pm, Ms Kostov sent an email to the Court's Registry, copied to Mr Hedge and my associate as follows (as written): I refer to this email. I apologize this email is late. There was a death in the family on Thursday 4 June, a shock, as only the week earlier, we were advised their was a hope of recovery. The funeral, is on 17 June, Interstate, per below, quarantine issues, remain. It is simply innappropriate for me, to be involved in these proceedings at this time, between a family passing, and funeral. I had proposed to send the Respondents a Notice to Produce re: matter in Affidavit, of which, I have not had a chance to draft, however Her Honour was aware of, however will do later this evening. May I respectfully ask two things: 1) This Subpoena issue be deferred to 24 June 2) The Hearing for this matter be adjourned to week thereafter. As the below reveals, it is a very difficult time. In any event, may I please be provided with a scanned copy of S1 produced. 78 The "scanned copy of S1 produced" is a reference to documents produced by Peterson Haines Lawyers in response to the subpoena. 79 At 11.14 pm, Ms Kostov sent an email to the Court's Registry, copied to Mr Hedge and Marie Selim (Ms Selim was then an employed solicitor at Colin Biggers & Paisley), attached to which was a document headed "notice to produce a document in a pleading or affidavit". Ms Kostov said that the attachment was sent "by way of Service". The materials sought in the notice to produce are described at [3(4)] above. 80 At 11.36 pm, Ms Kostov sent an email addressed to Ms Bondin and copied to Matthew Osborne, Mr Shaw, Hamish McCormick and Paul Eric at AFSA email addresses and the email addresses at AFSA for "servlegdoc", "regulation" and "LG-Legal" (AFSA receiver addresses). The "notice to produce" to AFSA was attached. The email stated: Dear Ms Bondin I trust you have been well. I refer to your Affidavit of 11 May 2020, of which, you allege to be true and correct, at ATTACHMENT 2. At ATTACHMENT 1, I have asked you produce: a) All communications between AFSA, the Official Trustee, and Peterson Haines Lawyers, related to the Trustee decision of November 2018, per paragraph 14 to 16 b) Proof of Mr Shaw, liasing with your legal team, in relation to my requested review of the said decision, per paragraph 16 C) Proof of the $45,000 costs AFSA allege they are owed, and proof of the estimated further $30000 you allege, you will be owed, per paragraph 21 and 22. I look forward to receiving this information from you, given you purportedly authored the Affidavit, and, had authorisation, from your employer to do so. Mr Hedge, has been provided a copy of this document, however I thought important, AFSA is aware, if what is requested.

[15]

Wednesday, 10 June 2020 81 At 11.15 am, Ms Kostov sent an email to the Court's Registry copied to Mr Hedge and Ms Selim as follows (as written): I refer to this matter, next listed, for 16 June 2020. Per below, there has been a death in the family, on 4 June 2020, absolutely devestating. The funeral in Australia, is scheduled for 17 June, and a service will follow overseas. I am in no position to run a Hearing, and culturally, when a death occurs, it is entirely innappropriate to do so. Yesterday, I provided the Respondents with the Notice to Produce, ATTACHED,Her Honour was aware of, in light of personal matters, I had forgotten to do so, so did so last night. I have asked the Respondent for a short two week adjournment, to July, to allow the funeral and mourning period, to end, after 4 July 2020. May I ask if Her Honour can approve such. Attached to the email was part of an email chain in which Ms Kostov appeared to have been seeking an exemption to enter the Northern Territory, an email to Mr Hedge sent at 8.35 am on that day in similar terms to that sent to the Court, and Ms Kostov's email sent to the Court at 6.07 pm on 9 June 2020. 82 By email dated 12.01 pm, the Court enquired of the parties as to whether 8 July 2020 at 10.15 am would be appropriate for the hearing of Ms Kostov's applications. All parties agreed to that date and the hearing was listed for that time. 83 At 2.13 pm, in response to Judicial Registrar Cridland's email sent at 11.59 am on that day which asked if the respondents had any objection to the "notice to produce", Ms Selim sent an email to Judicial Registrar Cridland indicating that the "notice to produce" was objectionable and Colin Biggers & Paisley would shortly write to Ms Kostov in relation to the respondents' position. 84 By an email sent by Mr Hedge to Ms Kostov at 5.45 pm, Mr Hedge said the following (as written): We refer to the attached "Notice to Produce" addressed to the Respondents, dated 9 June 2020 (Notice). The Notice is invalid. A Notice of Produce issued under Rule 20.31 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) can only call for the production of documents that have been mentioned in the Respondents' pleadings or affidavits. None of the requested documents in the Notice were referred to in Ms Bondin's Report to the Court of 11 May 2020. We further note that the Notice is seeking the production of privileged documents. Privilege has not been waived. You have in any event issued a subpoena to a third party asking for the same documents requested in paragraph 1 of the Notice. As such you have access to the documents you seek and face no disadvantage. The Notice appears to be in effect an attempt to obtain discovery which is only available in the Federal Court with leave. Any application for discovery in these proceedings will be opposed. This correspondence simply adds again to the unnecessary costs generated by the manner in which you have conducted these proceedings. In respect of the Proceedings generally, you remain in breach of the Court's directions made on 9 March 2020. Please immediately provide submissions setting out the evidence you rely upon, the relief you seek from the Court and the basis upon which you say that the Court has power to grant that relief We also again note that you are yet to file your Statement of Affairs. As such you remain in breach of Section 54 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). We reserve the right to seek costs consequent upon the Notice and your failure to comply with the Court's directions of 9 March.

[17]

Monday, 22 June 2020 87 At 12.24 pm, Mr Hedge sent an email to Ms Kostov as follows: We refer to your "Notice to Produce" dated 9 June and filed with the Court on 11 June 2020. We wrote to you on 10 June informing you of our objections to the document and of our view that it is invalid Notwithstanding our email, to which you have not replied, you filed the Notice to Produce with the court. This is not the proper procedure in respect of Notices to Produce. We will not repeat the matters set out in our earlier email. That email is attached below. Our clients will be pressing the court at the hearing of this matter on 8 July to finalise these proceedings. Our client wish to avoid you further wasting the court's time and our client incurring further unnecessary costs by arguing irrelevant issues. For this reason, and this reason only, our client will allow you to inspect the correspondence between it and Peterson Haines Lawyers. The Court Rules only provide our client is obliged to make any documents produced in response to a Notice to Produce available for inspection. Given the current situation with Covid 19 which makes an attendance by you to inspect unavailable our client will produce those documents to the Court and you can make arrangements to access them in the usual way Our client will not be producing any documents other than the above in response to this Notice. The reasons are made clear in our email of 10 June The above will be noted to the Registrar when the matter is next listed on 24 June 2020. We will seek the costs of the appearance be paid by you as Notices to Produce un Rule 20.31(1) are not documents that should be filed nor be the subject of any court attendances. We again note that you remain in breach of the directions made by Justice Farrell for the preparation of this matter for hearing. Our client will oppose any further attempts by you to adjourn the hearing date. We also again note that you remain in breach of the legal obligation under Section 54 of the Bankruptcy Act to file a Statement of Affairs.

[18]

Tuesday, 23 June 2020 88 By an email sent at 11.16 am, the Court's Registry advised Ms Kostov, Mr Hedge and Ms Selim that the return of the notice to produce issued to AFSA was listed on Wednesday, 24 June 2020 at 9.30 am. 89 In response, Ms Kostov sent an email to the Court's Registry, copied to Mr Hedge and my associate at 11.41 am as follows: I refer to the email below in relation to my Notice to Produce, the filed version ATTACHED for convenience. Mr Hedge has stated he will not produce the documents requested. May I therefore ask Her Honour make orders, that such material be produced. 90 Mr Hedge responded to Ms Kostov by email sent at 11.53 am as follows: The matter is listed before the Registrar tomorrow Your constant emails to the Court and in particular to the Associate to Justice Farrell are inappropriate and should cease. If you wish to put a position you should do so before the Registrar tomorrow. 91 At 3.12 pm, by email sent by Ms Selim to the Court's Registry, 10 documents were produced in response to the "notice to produce" issued by Ms Kostov on 9 June 2020. 92 At 4.30 pm, Ms Kostov sent an email to Judicial Registrar Cridland, copied to my associate and Mr Hedge saying: I refer to tomorrow's listing. In light of the fact that the Respondent refuses to provide material asked for under Notice to Produce, I have asked Her Honour make orders for such material to be produced, or, I will simply file a Subpoena. Please therefore vacate tomorrow's listing, until Direction given by Her Honour. 93 Mr Hedge responded by email sent to Ms Kostov at 4.50 pm complaining that Ms Kostov again approached my chambers directly, informing her that leave to issue a subpoena would be opposed and going on to say: We again note you are in breach of the Court's directions and that you also remain in breach of your obligations under the Bankruptcy Act to file a Statement of Affairs We remind you of the order made by Justice Farrell requiring a formal interlocutory process and affidavit in support in the event that you again seek to vacate the hearing scheduled for 8 July. Any application to vacate the hearing will be opposed. Any applications to the Court must be made in accordance with the Federal Court Rules and heard in open court.

[19]

Wednesday, 24 June 2020 94 At 10.07 am, Ms Kostov sent an email to my associate, Judicial Registrar Cridland, Ms Bondin, Mr McCormack and Mr Osborn (of AFSA), Mr Hedge, and the AFSA receiver addresses, copied to what appears to be two people with email addresses ending in "ifwglobal.com" and with a subject line "Urgent: Fraud Call from AFSA, IFW Global, 24 June 2020" saying (as written): Dear Associate Please URGENTLY pass this message to Her Honour. Someone received a call this morning, looking for myself, identifying as a Collection agency, Darren Kelly. He says I have had no contact with AFSA, and that they wish to commence proceedings against myself. We know such is not true, as there is daily contact, with AFSA. The number the call was received from is [redacted]. https://blog.ifwglobal.com/blog/meet‐the‐ifw‐team‐investigations‐manager‐darren‐kelly Can AFSA please advise if they have indeed engaged this group, or, if it is a fraud. Thankyou 95 A transcript of the teleconference in relation to the return of the subpoena issued to Peterson Haines Lawyers and the notice to produce issued to AFSA commenced at 10.09 am on 24 June 2020 before Judicial Registrar Cridland. Mr Hedge was in attendance when proceedings commenced. After announcing his appearance, Mr Hedge advised that he was trying to contact Ms Kostov and enquired whether Judicial Registrar Cridland had received an email sent at 10:07 am, which he had only just received. Ms Kostov then joined the call. 96 After establishing that Ms Kostov could hear the proceedings, Judicial Registrar Cridland noted that the matter listed was for the return of a subpoena. There was a brief discussion that packet "S1" related to documents produced by Peterson Haines Lawyers on 27 May 2020, and the fact that some documents had been produced in response to the notice to produce issued to AFSA. Ms Kostov then raised the issue that AFSA had not produced some documents for which she had asked. Judicial Registrar Cridland said that because some documents had been produced, she was in a position to make access orders and if there were other outstanding issues they could be stood over to be dealt with by the Judicial Registrar or before me. Mr Hedge noted that Ms Kostov's application was listed for hearing on 8 July 2020 before me. Mr Hedge indicated that there was no objection to Ms Kostov being given access to the documents that had been produced. He submitted that the "other documents are just flagrantly not covered by the notice to produce, some of which are privileged, some of which have nothing to do with anything" and if there needs to be argument it should be before me. Ms Kostov (erroneously) submitted that the notice to produce procedure had been adopted at my direction but indicated that she will be happy to file an application for leave to subpoena further documents. There was then discussion as to whether discovery was a more appropriate process for obtaining those documents, if such an order might be made so late in the proceedings. Ms Kostov made submissions concerning whether or not the documents which had not been produced by AFSA were referred to in Ms Bondin's affidavit. In response to a question as to whether there was anything else Mr Hedge wished to raise, he indicated that it would be appropriate for an order to be made reserving costs. 97 The following then occurred: MS KOSTOV: And, Registrar - sorry, Registrar, there is another quite serious issue that has happened this morning and I have - sorry, again, me and my emails - but I have sent an email immediately to the court. A family member, a distant family member, this morning received a call from a mobile phone. The man identified himself as a Darren from Global Investigation Group. Now, he had said that he has been engaged by AFSA for some - he has been engaged by AFSA - this is what he said, Mr Hedge - because AFSA have said that there has been no communication with myself and they wish to now start proceedings and it might be referred to the Australian Federal Police. Now, I've - - - 1 THE REGISTRAR: Okay - - - MS KOSTOV: - - - googled this man and it seems as if it's - it could be a fraud. So I just wanted to ask Mr Hedge does he know anything about this, or what the situation is - - - THE REGISTRAR: Okay. So this - Ms Kostov, this is not the appropriate - you can't ask questions - - - MS KOSTOV: Okay. THE REGISTRAR: - - - like that of somebody in a court proceeding. MS KOSTOV: Okay. THE REGISTRAR: It could very well just be a spam caller, we don't know. So - - - MS KOSTOV: Okay. THE REGISTRAR: - - - that's not part of the notice to produce this morning - - - MS KOSTOV: No, it's not - - - THE REGISTRAR: - - - so ..... - - - MS KOSTOV: - - - but sorry, your Honour, it has - sorry, it happened literally five minutes ago. So I thought while Mr Hedge is there if he knows anything about it after this court he could let me know, that would be - - - THE REGISTRAR: Okay. All right. MS KOSTOV: - - - be good. THE REGISTRAR: Yes, that - yes, so - yes. But that's not part of the - - - MS KOSTOV: Sorry, yes. THE REGISTRAR: - - - of the court matters this morning. So - - - MS KOSTOV: No, it's not. Okay THE REGISTRAR: So thank you. So that access order is made in relation to those documents. So because we're - the registry is shut down at the moment because of COVID-19 any documents that are produced to the court - I gather that it's not - there's not very many, Mr Hedge, is that correct? MR HEDGE: Documents? No, there are not many - - - 98 The transcript reveals that all that transpired after this was a conversation about the fact that documents produced by Peterson Haines Lawyers and AFSA could be produced to Ms Kostov electronically if she makes an application to the Court's Registry to inspect those documents, which could then be emailed to her. Judicial Registrar Cridland then excused Mr Hedge and Ms Kostov and moved on to the next matter. 99 In the course of the day, there were a number of emails between Ms Kostov and Chloe Marshall, Business Operations Manager at IFW Global. Those emails state that Mr Kelly was a former employee of IFW Global. Ms Kostov demanded evidence concerning Mr Kelly's relationship with that firm and that the people identified on IFW Global's website do, indeed, have NSW Police qualifications. Ms Marshall advised Ms Kostov that a Darren Whiteman owns the number of the telephone identified in Ms Kostov's email at [94] above and that he is employed by Global Skip Tracing. This correspondence was copied to various people with New South Wales police email addresses as well as Mr Hedge and various email addresses at AFSA. 100 Further to the email set out at [94] above, at 10.54 am, Ms Kostov sent an email to Mr Hedge, copied to the recipients of the earlier email as follows: Can you confirm via return email, whether you or AFSA have engaged the group below, a man identifying as Darren Kelly, alleging AFSA are not able to contact myself, which is entirely false. The Police, will be contacted. His quoted number [redacted]. 101 Ms Kostov sent an email to "admin" and "darren" at an email address for Global Skip Tracing, copied to many of the recipients of the email at [94] above and others (including my associate) as follows: Dear Global Skip Tracing Thankyou for your call earlier, confirming you have been engaged by AFSA, to, this morning, threaten me with Australian Federal Police action, as you allege, I am evading AFSA. This being, when today, the matter was listed before Registrar Cridland, today at 9.30am, and, AFSA, are refusing to provide documents, in the ATTACHED Notice to Produce, dated 11 June 2020. I also ATTACH, Court materials lodged by AFSA, showing clear correspondence with myself, daily, the past 6 months. You will also see below, AFSA, have imposed a communication restriction, as, they allege, I contact them, too often. Yet, you allege, you have been instructed, I have evaded them. You said, that AFSA have provided you with a Letter of Engagement. Can you please provide this to Her Honour Farrell J, cc'd to this email. Her Honour, managing this matter, listing it for Hearing, back in April. If you are not willing to provide such, please advise of such today, and both yourselves and AFSA, cc'd, will be subpoened to produce the relevant material. I also ask, all communications with myself, are conducted via email, so all correspondence, can be retained by the Court. I remind you how serious it is, to telephone people, and threaten them with Australian Federal Police action, in circumstances where, they have done nothing wrong. I include the CEO and Legal Team of AFSA for transperancy. If Ms Melissa Bondin, not qualified in Law has instructed you, please further advise. If such from Mr Lockyer, please advise, which I doubt, because per the below, I told him he would be notified of proceedings as they continued, and he has, and thanked me below. If you are are not telling the truth, and have been instructed by someone else, I suggest you be honest. Thankyou very much. Attached to this email were: (1) A copy of an email sent by Ms Kostov to Brett Lockyer of AFSA on 21 February 2020 which attached a document said to have been accepted by the Court. The Court infers that this was Ms Kostov's application for reinstatement of these proceedings. Mr Lockyer responded to this email with "Thank you Adriana". (2) A copy of an email sent by Ms Bondin to Ms Kostov on 29 April 2020 which provided as follows: I refer to your numerous emails and messages over the past week to members of AFSA staff including our AFSA Legal team, AFSA Fraud, AFSA Regulation and your continued contact with AFSA Executive staff. Let me be clear, your persistent contact - in direct contravention of the contact restriction imposed on you - will not: • result in a change to any of the decisions that have previously been made by the Official Trustee in relation to the administration of your bankruptcy. • result in updated responses to matters that have been repetitively addressed including your bankruptcy, Kennards and the Official Trustee's involvement with Amelie House. • change our approach to contact with you - I will be the sole contact point within AFSA and will only engage with you in writing, on new issues that warrant a response. Your recent emails do not raise any new matters and in accordance with our previous advice, will be filed with no further response from AFSA. A reminder of your contact restriction All contact with AFSA must be directed in writing, to me as your Case Manager. You are not to attempt to contact any other AFSA employee, including AFSA's senior management either by email or telephone. AFSA will not engage with you on matters that have already been addressed. Correspondence raising previous issues will be read, filed and not responded to, unless you provide new information that warrants a response. AFSA staff have been advised of your contact restriction and instructed not to engage with you directly. If you attempt to contact AFSA staff by phone, your calls will be terminated. If you email other staff within AFSA, your emails will not be acknowledged. Your emails will be directed to me for review and response if relevant, in accordance with the requirements outlined. Further to our correspondence of 21 April 2020, your ongoing conduct continues to demonstrate elements across a number of the categories outlined in AFSA's Unreasonable Complainant Conduct Policy. These behaviours are inappropriate and must stop. 102 Brad Lyons Consulting Director of Global Skip Tracing responded to Ms Kostov's email at [101] above, copied to many of the recipients of the email at [94] above and others (including my associate), as follows: Dear Adriana, I can appreciate your frustrations and concerns. Please note during our phone conversation there was no mention of Federal Police action, nor was there any mention on the phone call you had with Darren earlier today. I can assure you again that this is a simple matter of updating your details and invite you to do so. Global Skip Tracing PTY LTD is a legitimate business operating within the Australian regulations and laws. As mentioned during our conversation, we are simply seeking to confirm your current residential address. I would invite you to provide that via email if this makes you more comfortable as you were not willing to provide this to me over the phone. I note you have also contacted two other companies in relation to the conversation you had this morning with Darren from our office. Please note the companies you contacted have no connection with our business nor do they have any knowledge of our instructions provided to us by AFSA. I have spoken to the companies you made contact with and cleared up the confusion. I am more than happy for you to contact me if you have any further concerns. Alternatively, if you do not feel comfortable providing your residential address details with myself or my company. I would strongly recommend you contact AFSA directly and update your details with them. 103 Ms Kostov responded to the email at [102] above from Mr Lyons as follows: Please provide the Letter of Engagement, and phone recording, whereby it was said, that AFSA would refer this matter to the Australian Federal Police, if they were not contacted. If you will not provide such by return email, I will make the application today, that such material, be subpoened. 104 Ms Kostov responded again to the email at [102] above from Mr Lyons, copied to many of the previous recipients of this chain of emails, including my associate, as follows: Dear Mr Lyons I refer to your assertion below: Global Skip Tracing PTY LTD is a legitimate business operating within the Australian regulations and laws. Can you please provide, the relevant "Australian regulations and laws" via which, you allege, it is acceptable, to threaten myself, with Australian Federal Police action, and allege AFSA cannot contact me, in circumstances where, the matter was listed today, on my request, because AFSA, are not producing, documents, I have requested, in this matter. Mr Hedge, Sellars, and McCosker, can you please advise, why, before Registrar Cridland, you lied to the Registrar, and pretended you knew nothing of today's scheduled call, which was designed by AFSA, to threaten and harrass myself, where, you had no valid basis, to do so. I remind you, such, is contained, in the Court transcript. Mr Hedge, is well aware, that I am contactable by email and phone. Thankyou 105 Mr Lyons responded to the email at [104] as follows: Adriana, Within the space of a few hours you have managed to contact three companies that have no relationship with any of my companies. The latest being a university that simply makes no sense. As previously stated multiple times, I would recommend you seek legal advice before you proceed any further with your smear campaign against my employees and/or any of my other companies. Your case has been closed with Global Skip Tracing as we have fulfilled our clients request. In one of many emails to you today, I did mention and use the term vexatious in the hope it would remind you of a previous court order here: You are more than welcome to have your solicitors contact our office and we can pass on any communication to our legal council. Since you have made multiple threats and false allegations, I feel it best to communicate via legal council and they will ensure your solicitors are provided with a prompt response to resolve any issues you may have. 106 Ms Kostov responded to the email at [105], copied to all recipients of the prior correspondence, including my associate, as follows: Dear Mr Lyons Thankyou for your email. I in fact completed a Bachelor of Laws, in 2004, and you therefore, do not need to advise me, or this Court, as to the law. Because I am legally qualified, I took Mr Whiteman's threats, of Federal Police referral, seriously, and contacted the Police myself, as no person, should ever be threatened, at the time, a matter is listed for Hearing, in a Federal Court. I suggest, you seek legal advice, and do not purport to give legal advice, in circumstances where, you state "Legal Council" instead of Legal Counsel. Please advise, my question below, as to you alleging, your actions, appropriate, in circumstances where, the matter was listed for Hearing today, and, you allege, I could not be contacted, and threaten me, with Australian Federal Court action. You state: Ms Kostov then set out the content of the email set out at [104] above with the added line: I will make a formal application for material, in due course. 107 Ms Kostov sent an email to Ms Bondin, Mr Lockyer, Mr Eric, David Bergman, Peter Edwards, Gavin McCosker and Joanna Stone of AFSA as well as the AFSA receiver addresses in which Ms Kostov said (as written): Dear Ms Bondin and Mr McCosker I refer to my email to Global Tracing, below, 24 June 2020, below, with supporting ATTACHMENTS. Can you please provide the Letter of Engagement you signed with Global Tracing, to have Darren call and threaten myself with Australian Federal Police action, in circumstances where, the matter was before the Court today, 24 June 2020, you are refusing to provide material under Notice to Produce, ATTACHED dated 10 June 2020, you are filing copious material with the Court showing my communication with yourselves, Mr Brett Lockyer, of Compliance, is fully across all proceedings, and thanked me for my communication, and further, yourselves, have imposed, a communication restriction, as you allege, I communicate too often. Yet, you allege, AFSA cannot communicate with myself, and threaten myself with the Australian Federal Police, there is daily contact. Please provide a copy of the Letter of Engagement, with Global Skip Tracing, and I put you on notice, a claim for damages, will be made, for your threats and harrassment, in these circumstances. Thankyou 108 Ms Kostov sent an email to "darren" at Global Skip Tracing and copied "admin" and "nadia" at Global Skip Tracing as well as Mr McCosker, Mr McCormick and Mr Osborne of AFSA, the AFSA receiver addresses, and Mr Hedge as follows: Dear Mr Whiteman I further refer to your assertion today that AFSA do not have my telephone number. Such is false, as on every legal document filed with the Court, it is a requirement that your telephone number is on the footer of every document, as it has been the past 18 months, on every Court document, with AFSA, ATTACHED. Can you therefore advise, why you lied in this regard, as you did about referrels to the Australian Federal Police, and under what law, are skiptracers, allowed to lie, to harrass people for improper purpose? Please also advise, who, within AFSA, advised you to lie as you did, in circumstances where, the matter was listed before the Court today, on my request, and there had been daily communication with AFSA, to the extent, they imposed a restriction on communication below. Thankyou

[20]

Thursday, 25 June 2020 109 Ms Kostov filed two subpoena requests. One request was for the issue of a subpoena to Global Skip Tracing pursuant to which Ms Kostov sought to obtain the signed service and consulting agreement between AFSA and/or the Official Trustee and Global Skip Tracing in relation to matters concerning Ms Kostov and all written, phone and email communications between AFSA and Global Skip Tracing in relation to Ms Kostov including communications on 24 June 2020 and recordings or notes of telephone calls of Darren Whiteman and "Brendan" Lyons "to and between" Ms Kostov on 24 June 2020. The other request was for the issue of a subpoena to AFSA. No draft subpoena was attached to the request as filed. Ms Kostov made a number of submissions indicating her disagreement with AFSA's position concerning the "notice to produce" and indicating that she sought the same documents as those which she sought from Global Skip Tracing. 110 Ms Bondin sent an email to Ms Kostov as follows: Dear Ms Kostov, I refer to your emails dated 24 June 2020 wherein you have alleged fraudulent activity by Mr Darren Kelly of Global Skip Tracing Pty Ltd. I confirm that AFSA Enforcement has engaged Mr Darren Kelly of Global Skip Tracing Pty Ltd to conduct skip tracing to obtain current addresses of individuals who are bankrupt and have not yet lodged their Bankruptcy Form (formerly a Statement of Affairs). You were contacted as part of a broader project to induce the lodgement of outstanding Bankruptcy Forms. This action was not specifically directed at you individually. As previously advised, you are required to lodged a Bankruptcy Form pursuant to Section 54 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 ('the Act'). Your continued failure to lodge your Bankruptcy Form is an Offence under the Act. Please be advised that your three-year bankruptcy period will not commence until your Bankruptcy Form has been lodged with AFSA. AFSA Enforcement is able to take this action. Please refrain from sending any further communication regarding this matter to any parties. The Official Trustee wishes to also remind you that it is an Offence under Section 80 of the Act not to disclose your current contact details including your telephone numbers and address. We ask that you confirm your current contact details including your telephone numbers and residential and/or postal address for our records. 111 Ms Kostov replied to Ms Bondin, copied to Mr McCosker, Mr Bergman, Mr Hedge and several of the AFSA receiver addresses as follows: Thankyou Ms Bondin, for your response below, of 25 June 2020, of which I will take as a response also, from Mr McCosker and Bergman. Can you please provide a copy of the said Service Agreement with Global Skip Tracing, to verify your claims, as to why, they were engaged, in circumstances where the matter was listed before the Court, Mr Brett Lockyer of Enforcement was aware of Court proceedings, and thanked me for advising him, and further, you have purportedly spent $70,000 in these matters, yet you allege, you have no phone number, and cannot contact me, in circumstances where, you have imposed a communication restriction as I purportedly contact AFSA, too often. Can you please also advise, why, over the past 18 months, such a question, was never asked by AFSA and CBP Lawyers, in circumstances where, there is daily interaction with yourselves, to the extent that you imposed a communication restriction. Can you please advise why AFSA instead incurring gross costs, per your Affidavit of 11 May 2020, hiring consultants. Can you further confirm, that part of your instructions to Global Skip Tracing, was to threaten Australian Federal Police action, as Darren Whiteman did, in circumstances where, a matter was listed before the Court that morning, at 10am, on my request, and yourselves, are refusing to provide documents required, for this matter. Can you please advise, why, you falsely allege you do not have telephone numbers, when, a telephone number, and address, is required, on every signed document, and has been provided, in documents, at every occassions, ATTACHED, the past 18 months. Can you further please advise, if Mr Scott Hedge, or your legal team, instructed this set of events. Please advise the purported Enforcement Team Member who is involved in this set of events of AFSA threatening me, in circumstances where there is no basis to do so. My understanding, is that you are lying about enforcement instructing this, as you are lying about not having a telephone number, and I remind you, how serious it is, for government employees, not appropriately qualified, to lie and use government resources, for improper purpose, to wrongly threaten, and cause people distress. I again ask, whether you have qualifications in Law, to repeatedly provide legal advice, on behalf of AFSA. 112 Ms Kostov sent an email to Mark Findlay of AFSA, copied to Michael Parkinson and Lisa English of AFSA and "media" at AFSA as follows (as written): Dear Mr Findlay I write this to you, as Director of Regulation, and I have Law/Commerce degrees, and such, is very serious. I am in the process, of setting aside a bankruptcy, which occurred in my absence, in 2018. I was very unwell in 2016-17, to the extent, I could not work, obviously not my choice. No one helped me during this time. In any event, the matter was listed, before the Federal Court, yesterday, 10am, before Registrar Cridland, for a Return of Subpoena, as I had asked, AFSA, produce documents, in the ATTACHED Notice to Produce, which was opposed, the listing, at bottom of this email. A call was received, from a man identifying himself as Darren Whiteman, from Global Skip Tracing, alleging, that AFSA could not contact me, I was evading yourselves, and, you would refer me to the Australian Federal Police for such. Such, obviously a lie, as the matter was listed in Court that day, and you and I know, telephone numbers, are on all Court documents, and, my number is, and has, the whole time. An investigation is commencing, the Federal Court notified of this, and Global Skip Tracing also. I did like a response from you, as Director of Regulation, as to why, I am being threatened and harrassed by you, in circumstances where, their are matters before the Court, and assertions, as to you not being able to contact me, are entirely false. Please treat this matter, with the seriousness it deserves. Thankyou It appears from an email sent by Ms Kostov to the Court after the hearing of this matter that Mr Findlay responded that "I have no knowledge of the specific reason you were contacted. I have referred your request to Peter Alderson, Director of Enforcement" with Mr Alderson's email address. 113 Ms Kostov sent an email to Peter Alderton, Mr Findlay and Ms English of AFSA copied to "media" at AFSA in which Ms Kostov said: Dear Mr Findlay Thankyou for your earlier response. Per the below, the matter has not been addressed by Ms Bondin, and further, she has been asked why she is giving legal advice on behalf of AFSA when she is not legally qualified, as you and I are, and further, why she is alleging, yourself, and Mr Alderton, in Regulation, instructed this set of events. She has been asked to provide a copy of the purported Service Agreement with Global Skip Tracing. As Director of Enforcement, Mr Alderton, can you please confirm the assertion of Ms Bondin below is true and correct. Can you also provide confirmation of her qualifications, is she legally qualified to provide legal advice and threats, as she is doing. A signed statement from the Enforcement team on all matters would be appreciated.

[21]

Friday, 26 June 2020 114 Ms Kostov sent an email to Ms Bondin, copied to Mr Alderton, Mr Findlay, Mr McCosker, Mr Osborne and various AFSA receiver addresses, as well as Judicial Registrar Cridland and Mr Hedge as follows (as written): Dear Ms Bondin I refer to the assertions you have made regarding your Enforcement Team, authorising you, to have Mr Darren Whiteman, contact myself, and threaten myself with Australian Federal Police action, in circumstances where: a) the matter was listed before the NSW Federal Court that morning on my request, 10am Wednesday 24 June b) You lied you do not have telephone details, you do, as every document lodged with the Court the last 18 months, has my mobile number c) Communication with AFSA occurs everyday You have been asked to provide a signed statement as to your assertions, as well as a signed statement from Enforcement, that you were authorised to threaten me in circumstances where there is no basis to do so. You have also been asked to provide your qualifications in Law. You have been asked to advise if CBP Lawyers, advised this set of events. Please provide such, and please note these documents are being requested to be produced to the NSW Federal Court. I should not have to advise you, who serious, threatening people and using government resources, for improper purpose is, especially, when they are legally qualified The Director of Enforcement, Mr Finlay and Alderton, no doubt understand such. Registrar Cridland, was made aware of this call, and such is recorded on transcript, and forms part of the Court file. 115 Some minutes later, Ms Kostov sent an email to Mr Alderson and Mr Alderton, copied to Mr Findlay, Mr Osborne, Ms Bondin, Judicial Registrar Cridland and Mr Hedge as follows (as written): Dear Mr Alderson I re-send the below serious correspondence, with ATTACHMENTS, for response by Ms Bondin. Ms Bondin alleges, yourself, Director of Enforcement, authorised her, to engage a skip tracer company, to threaten me with Australian Federal Police action, as you allege, you do not have my telephone or email details. Such a lie, because the matter was listed before Registrar Cridland, that morning, in the NSW Federal Court, on my request, and, it is AFSA, refusing to provide documents. Further, you never had, your lawyer, Mr Scott Hedge, raise this issue. I have asked, you provide copies of the alleged Service Agreement with Global Skip Tracing, and further, provide a signed Statement from your Enforcement Team, that you authorised, these set of actions, to use Commonwealth resources, to threaten and harrass myself, for improper purpose, where there is no basis to do so, and the basis to which Ms Bondin, alleged such actions were authorised, are a lie. Please ensure, this matter is treated with the seriousness, it deserves, and responded to, promptly. 116 Ms Kostov sent an email to Nick Crennan, Managing Partner of Colin Biggers & Paisley, copied to Mr Hedge, Judicial Registrar Cridland, Mr Alderson and "darren", "brad" and "nadia" at Global Skip Tracing in which she said (as written): Dear Mr Crennan Trust you are well. I write this to you, as Managing Partner of CBP Lawyers I have a serious Complaint, regarding Mr Scott Hedge, that requires, your response, and explanation to the Federal Court. At 10am, on Wednesday 24 June, on my request, a matter was listed before Registrar Cridland, in the Subpoena list, for Mr Hedge, representing AFSA, to produce documents, per my Notice to Produce, dated 9 June 2020, ATTACHED. This is a long running matter, for the past 18 months, listed for Hearing, on 8 July 2020, before Her Honour Farrell J. At 9.50am, I was notified of a call, from Mr Darren Whiteman, of Global Skip Tracing, alleging, that AFSA could not contact me, I was evading them, and, I would be referred to the Australian Federal Police. This being, when in 19 minutes, the matter was before Registrar Cridland, Mr Hedge liases with me daily, and the matter, was before the Court, in 10 minutes. I raised this call, before Registrar Cridland, Mr Hedge, pretended, he knew nothing about such, which is a lie. Please advise: a) Why you feel it is acceptable, your Partner, Mr Hedge, lie to a Registrar b) Why it is acceptable, Mr Hedge, engage a thug, to call and harrass me and threaten me with Australian Federal Police action, where there are no grounds to do so. I remind you I have Law/Commerce degrees, and, as you can appreciate, have reported this matter, to the Police. I ask you please provide an explanation as to the above, and further, have Mr Hedge, provide a copy of the Service Agreement, with Global Skip Tracing, and the associated scope of work. Please include, Registrar Cridland, in your response, as well as Mr Peter Alderson, Director of Regulation, AFSA.

[23]

Tuesday, 30 June 2020 118 Ms Kostov sent an email to Mr Crennan, copied to Mr Hedge, in which she said: Dear Mr Hedge Could you please advise your involvement in the engagement of Global Skip Tracers, in circumstances where, their excuse for contacting myself, and the allegations AFSA could not contact me, were unfounded, as the matter was before the Court, and no issues of contact have ever been raised. Thankyou 119 Mr Hedge sent an email to Ms Kostov in which he said: For the record we note the following: • Our client has responded to your recent E Mails. • The Proceedings brought by you seeking to annul your bankruptcy are listed for hearing on 8 July. Any further attempt to delay the hearing will be opposed • You remain in breach of the directions for preparation of those Proceedings made by Justice Farrell. Please serve your outline of submissions and evidence you rely upon as directed. • You remain in breach of the Bankruptcy Act in that you still have not lodged a Statement of Affairs (now referred to as a Bankruptcy Form as explained in Ms Bondin's email of 25 June) • In respect of any matter other than these Proceedings including your obligations under the Bankruptcy Act you should communicate solely with Ms Bondin • We do not intend to respond to any further communication from you that does not directly relate to the Proceedings listed for hearing on 8 July and that requires a reply in order to assist the Court to deal with the Proceedings efficiently. 120 Ms Kostov sent an email to Mr Hedge, copied to Judicial Registrar Cridland, Mr Crennan, Mr Alderson, "nadia", "admin" and "darren" at Global Skip Tracing as follows: Dear Mr Hedge Thankyou however you have not answered my question. Please advise your involvement in engaging global Skip Tracing, in circumstances where, threats were made to refer myself to the Australian Federal Police, in circumstances where, the matter was before the Court that morning. Please include, Registrar Cridland, in your response. I propose to adjourn these proceedings, to subpoena material, of which you refused to provide, before the Registrar, under Notice to Produce. I also ask you cease and desist threatening me in circumstances of where, there is no basis to threaten me, as, I may in fact, not be bankrupt. To this extent, a complaint has been filed with the Australian Federal Police, for the conduct of last week, to which the Court, has been notified of. Global Skip Tracing, are included in this email, for transperancy. Thankyou 121 Ms Kostov sent an email to the Court's Registry enquiring whether leave had been granted to issue the two subpoenas for which she had sought leave and stating that she was "happy to adjourn the matter by one or two weeks to allow relevant material to be produced". 122 I caused the Court's Registry to send the following email to Ms Kostov, copied to Mr Hedge and Ms Selim as follows: Justice Farrell has considered your requests for leave to issue subpoenas to the Australian Financial Services Authority and Global Skip Tracing Pty Ltd. Her Honour refuses leave to issue a subpoena to Global Skip Tracing Pty Ltd as it does not relate to any issue in this proceeding. Her Honour refuses leave to issue a subpoena to the Australian Financial Services Authority on the basis that it is a party to the proceeding. Her Honour notes that Ms Kostov has been copying her Honour's associate on correspondence between Ms Kostov and the respondents or other persons in circumstances where she is not taking a step in the litigation which requires the Court's involvement in accordance with the Court's Rules or orders made by her Honour. It also appears that Ms Kostov has attempted to communicate with her Honour's chambers in relation to other matters before the Federal Court of Australia which have not been allocated to Justice Farrell. Her Honour directs Ms Kostov to cease all such correspondence directed to her associate. Her Honour directs that any correspondence by any party with the Court relevant to the determination of NSD30/2019 should be sent only to nswdr@fedcourt.gov.au and copied to the other parties. Any further correspondence directed to her Honour's associate will not be considered by her Honour. 123 Ms Kostov sent an email to the Court's Registry copied to Mr Hedge and Ms Selim, stating that "the documents requested were originally under Notice to Produce, drafted after receiving correspondence from Her Honour" on 26 May 2020. Ms Kostov enquired whether, in circumstances "where documents under Notice to Produce have been refused, would Her Honour be minded to order production of documents which can occur under the Rules where this occurs?"

[27]

Friday, 3 July 2020 128 At 12.50 pm, Ms Kostov sent an email to the Court's Registry, my associate, Chief Justice Alstegren's associate and various others with Federal Circuit Court email addresses. Ms Kostov said: Dear Registry Further to my earlier email, this matter is further not Proceeding through the Courts until you give me the basic human decency, and have your technology team stop this case, coming up first on Google Search results as it is, per ATTACHED. It is destroying my life, making me sick, destroying my career opportunities Google Legal Team, have given clear instructions for you to remove below. https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6332384?hl=en I am a Lady with Law/Commerce degrees, not an animal to be ridiculed and my privacy invaded. Thankyou 129 At 2.29 pm, Ms Kostov sent an email to the Court's Registry, copied to Mr Hedge and Mr Crennan, Mr Findlay and Mr Alderson of AFSA and "brad" and "darren" at Global Skip Tracing email addresses. Attached to the email was an email trail which appeared in the order of the emails above at [127], [115], [114], [113], [111], [110], [107] and [101] and a copy of the amended application filed on 23 April 2019 and the notice to produce issued on 9 June 2020 by Ms Kostov. The email said (as written): Dear Registry I refer to this matter before Her Honour on 8 July 2020. Please advise Her Honour, that I will not be proceeding with these matters, until, Mr Scott Hedge, Mr Peter Alderson and Mr Brad Lyons, disclose, why, at 9.50am, on Wednesday 24 June 2020, they orchestrated a call of threat, on false pretense, that AFSA, could not contact me. The assertion made by Ms Melissa Bondin, is false. I have asked a response below. I am a lady with Law Commerce degrees, and do not take threats, bullying and harrassment lightly. This Court, should not take such lightly either. Mr Hedge, AFSA, is not to contact me, until these questions are answered. Thankyou 130 At 3.45 pm, I caused the Court's Registry to send the following email to the parties: Any further issues relating to the production of documents will be dealt with at the hearing on July 8 2020 at 10.15 am. The hearing will proceed by video-conference using Microsoft Teams. Justice Farrell has directed that parties attend a test run to ensure that there are no technical difficulties on the day of the hearing. Her Honour will not attend this test call. Please advise before 10 am on Monday 6 July 2020 by reply email to all recipients of this email whether: (a) 3 pm on Monday 6 July 2020 would be a convenient time for a test run. (b) If that time is not convenient, at what time on Monday after midday or Tuesday 7 July 2020 would be convenient. A Microsoft Teams video conference meeting invitation will be circulated once a time has been agreed by the parties. Parties should have access to a computer or smartphone on the day of the test run and the same device should be used on the day of the hearing. Attached is the Federal Court of Australia's Practitioners and Litigants Guide to Electronic Hearings. Also attached is the Court's most recent Special Measures in response to COVID-19 Information Note (SMIN-1). 131 Shortly after the Court's email was sent, Mr Hedge indicated that he would be available at 3 pm on 6 July 2020 to participate in the test run. 132 Shortly after that, at 3:53 pm, Ms Kostov replied to the Court's Registry, copied to Mr Hedge, Mr Crennan, Mr Alderson and "brad", "nadia" and "darren" at Global Skip Tracing email addresses as follows: Dear Registry Thankyou for your email. I have made it clear below that there will be no further interaction from me with this Court until the questions related to Global Skip Tracing, are answered, via email, by Mr Hedge, Mr Whiteman, and Mr Alderson below. In no uncertain terms, do I, or those close to me, accept threats and harrassment as I received at 9.50am, on 24 June 2020. Thankyou

[28]

Monday, 6 July 2020 133 At approximately 6.42 am, Mr Hedge sent an email to Ms Kostov, copied to Ms Selim and another person at Colin Biggers & Paisley in response to Ms Kostov's email sent at 3.53 pm on 3 July 2020 as follows: Ms Kostov So there can be no doubt you should note: 1. The Federal Court Proceedings brought by you are listed for hearing on 8 July. That hearing is being conducted remotely and the Court has notified you of the arrangements. 2. We will attend the hearing and if you do not appear we will apply to have the proceedings dismissed with an order that you pay all costs on an indemnity basis 3. We will ask for an order that you be prevented from commencing further court proceedings of this nature. This is made clear in our written submissions that have previously been served upon you. 4. Unless the Court annuls your bankruptcy you are a bankrupt whether you agree with that or not 5. You remain in breach of your legal obligations under the Bankruptcy Act 6. Failure to comply with your obligations under the Bankruptcy Act is a breach of that Act and may lead to further enforcement action being taken by AFSA So that you are clear, this email and all earlier emails from you to this firm or to our client will be tendered to the Court in support of the above mentioned applications. 134 Ms Kostov responded to Mr Hedge's email by sending an email at 10.44 am to the Court's Registry, copied to Mr Crennan, Mr Alderson and another person at Colin Biggers & Paisley. Attached to it was an email trail in the order of the emails referred to at [133], [132], [130] and [121]. The email said: Can you please provide the below email from Mr Hedge to Her Honour, him further threatening me, in circumstances where, he fraudulently engaged Global Skip Tracing, to threaten me with Australian Federal Police action, at 9.50am, when, my matter was listed before Registrar Cridland, at 10am. I have asked Mr Hedge to explain why he engaged Global Skip Tracing, where there were no grounds to do so, and further, pretend he knew nothing about such, before Registrar Cridland. Mark Findlay, Director of Enforcement at AFSA, stating he is unaware of this activity. Mr Hedge has refused to do so, and continues to issue threats, this morning, intended to intimidate and harrass, with no grounds to do so. Thankyou 135 At 11.42 am, I caused the Court's Registry to send an email to the parties stating that, in circumstances where only one party has indicated its preparedness to attend the test call at 3 pm on 6 July 2020, Mr Hedge was directed to participate in a test call at 3 pm and Ms Kostov was directed to participate in a test call at 4 pm. 136 At 12.25 pm, Ms Kostov sent an email to Ms Tara Bowler, Mr Crennan and others at Colin Biggers & Paisley attached to which was an email trail in the order of the emails at [126], [120], [119], [118], [117], [116], [112], [111], [110], [107] and [101] . The email said (as written): Dear Ms Bowler I refer to a matter related to CBP Lawyers, a complaint filed last week below, to which the relevant lawyer Mr Hedge, refuses to address. I ask you take this email as a formal complaint, to be addressed by your relevant Complaint policy. On Wednesday 24 June, at 10am, a matter was listed, on my request, before Registrar Cridland, of the NSW Federal Court, regarding a Notice to Produce, which is at ATTACHMENT 1. Mr Hedge, appearing for the Respondent, AFSA. This matter, ongoing, the past 12 months or so. At circa 9.50am, a call was received, from a company, known as Global Skip Tracing, alleging, AFSA, the Respondent, could not contact me, and, that I was engaged in "debt evasion", and that I would be referred to the Australian Federal Police. I have degrees in Law and Commerce, and most certainly, do not take such threats, lightly. The assertion made above, obviously a lie, as I engaged with AFSA daily, and the matter, listed in 10 minutes. Before Registrar Cridland, Mr Hedge, falsely alleged, he knew nothing about this, which, has proven to be a lie. I have contacted the Australian Federal Police myself, and reported this matter, as it is serious, for someone, to threaten a person, under false pretense, with Australian Federal Police action. Per the below, I have asked Mr Hedge, to explain why, he engineered this call, designed to intimidate and harrass, where, there were no grounds to do so. He has not answered the question, and instead, continues to threaten me. I therefore ask CBP Lawyers, to respond to this matter, as, as it stands at present, you apparently believe it acceptable, the Partner of your firm, engages in conduct, with no reasonable grounds, designed to intimidate and harrass. I reserve my rights in this matter. Please advise if you require further information, to facilitate a proper investigation, into this matter. 137 At 2.21 pm, Ms Kostov sent an email to the Court's Registry, copied to Ms Selim, Mr Crennan, Lois Bullen, a solicitor employed by Colin Biggers & Paisley, Mr Alderson, Mr Findlay and Mr Osborne attached to which was her unsworn affidavit dated 6 July 2020 filed without leave. The email said (as written): Please see ATTACHED an Affidavit filed with the Registry earlier today regarding this matter. I provide further evidence regarding why this bankruptcy should be annulled, for Her Honour's understanding, and also proof, other debts, alleged by AFSA, are incorrect. I however feel very uncomfortable continuing with this matter, until the issue, of why, I was threatened and harrassed, by Global Skip Tracing, at 9.50am, on Wednesday 24 June 2020, 10 minutes before the matter was listed before Registrar Cridland, is addressed. Her Honour will see in the ATTACHED, I have filed a formal complaint with CBP Lawyers, requesting a response in this regard, Ms Fowler, Head of Human Resources, and Mr Crennan, Managing Partner, cc'd. I ask Her Honour, make orders, an explanation into this conduct, which was designed and engineered to intimidate and harrass, where there were no grounds to do so, is addressed. Mr Alderson, Director of Regulation, according to his employee, instructing this conduct. I have no contact, nor do I respond to any communication from Mr Hedge, in circumstances where, he engaged a thug, to threaten and harrass me, 10 minutes before a Court listing. I understand Global Skip Tracing, has lost a training contract, due to this horrific conduct, of which, is not legal, or proper. 138 Mr Hedge sent Ms Kostov an email at 3.30 pm stating that all correspondence relating to the proceedings or "communicating" with the Court must be copied to him as the solicitor on the record for the respondents. The email demonstrates that Ms Kostov's email had been forwarded to Mr Hedge by Ms Bullen. 139 At 4.34 pm, Ms Kostov sent an email to Mr Crennan, Ms Bowler, Ms Selim and Mr Hedge and another person in which she said: Dear Ms Bowler and Savy I refer to my complaint to you this morning, which is serious, and also contained in the ATTACHED Affidavit filed with the Court. Mr Hedge, has been asked, to cease and desist contacting myself, in these circumstances. I ask you tell him to refrain contacting myself until your investigation is complete. Legal documents will be provided to Ms Selim, and Luis below. This email constitutes a final warning to Mr Hedge to cease and desist contacting myself, in circumstances where, he engineered a call of threat on Wednesday 24 June at 9.50am, with no valid grounds to do so, with the matter listed in 10 minutes time, before Registrar Cridland, at 10am, on same date. I am legally qualified, and do not appreciate being threatened by your staff members. 140 At 5.13 pm, the Court's Registry sent an email to the parties indicating that the matter would be heard via Microsoft Teams video conference at 10.15 am on Wednesday, 8 July 2020. The email concluded: The parties should join the video conference ready to give appearances at 10.00 am on Wednesday, 8 July 2020. Her Honour notes that Ms Kostov did not attend the test call at 4.00 pm today. Her Honour does not regard any of the matters raised recently by Ms Kostov as a being a reasonable excuse for Ms Kostov to fail to comply with that direction. 141 Ms Kostov sent an email to Ms Selim and the Court's Registry at 6.07 pm which stated (as written): Dear Registry Thankyou for your email below. I have filed my Affidavit today, with supporting material. I stand my position that it is entirely innappropriate for this matter to proceed in circumstances where I have been threatened and harrassed, for no valid reason, by the Respondent. Seperate action, is being taken in this regard. In light of this situation, I suggest Her Honour, perhaps determine this matter on the papers, so as to avoid cost and time wastage, in this matter. Albeit my submission and Affidavit ATTACHED are brief, I trust they give Her Honour, an understanding of why I say, my bankruptcy should be set aside. I want no further interaction with CBP Lawyers, and Mr Hedge has been clearly advised not to contact myself, until the investigation by Human Resources, has been finalized. 142 The affidavit referred to in this email was filed without leave. Little of it had evidentiary value, and the Court has taken the material in it to be submissions, albeit that they are submissions also filed outside the time provided for in the Court's orders. It dealt with the following matters: (1) Ms Kostov said that AFSA had "wrongly said" that she owed funds to Credit Corp on the basis that the matter had been resolved and a debt claimed by Telstra as the "original service provider" was written off in June 2019. Attached to the affidavit is what purports to be an email chain of correspondence between Ms Kostov and a Jacques Duval of Credit Corp on 6 June 2019. In it, Ms Kostov accepts Credit Corp's offer to remove a default listing on a "no admissions basis" conditional on Ms Kostov's acceptance that it was done as "full and final resolution of both the debt and any previous or existing dispute". (2) Ms Kostov attaches a copy of what appears to be an email sent by her on 30 June 2020 to two email addresses at "nine.com.au" in which she asks "Mr Koppelman" (who Ms Kostov understands to have then been the chief financial officer of Nine Entertainment Limited) "whether Nine Entertainment (formally FairFax Media) still wish to pursue costs, from a legal matter, of 2016 of circa $45,000". Ms Kostov states that she "would prefer Mr Koppelman to write these costs off, as a bad debt, since they will not be recovered". Ms Kostov advised that she was declared bankrupt in 2018 and stated that "[d]ue to CO-VID19 and other circumstances, these costs, most certainly won't be recovered". (3) In relation to the costs order obtained by Mr Easton which founded her bankruptcy, Ms Kostov submitted again, that the costs were "unverified by me, as I was very unwell", that she had "commenced a review process in July 2019, however, the assessment has not yet been listed" and that she "propose to Her Honour, to do this, as I suspect once verified, the amounts will be under $20,000". (4) Ms Kostov noted the recent changes in bankruptcy laws to deal with COVID-19 which "both extend out a bankruptcy notice by 6 months, and the amount, to $20,000". Ms Kostov proposed that Mr Easton's costs be reassessed and "see, whether an arrangement can be reached" on the basis that there has not been, and will not be "any benefit, to anyone, for [Ms Kostov] to be wrongly "bankrupt", as all such will do, is prevent [her] earning capacity" and that she does not "see, any value, in such occurring". She submitted that "if I was the type of person, to evade matters and repayment, I would have declared bankruptcy, back in 2016, when medical professionals, advised, I would not be able to work, for some time". Ms Kostov said that, instead she tried to work and maintain her career. (5) Ms Kostov reiterated her complaints concerning the contact from Global Skip Tracing which she says was made immediately before the proceedings before Judicial Registrar Cridland on 24 June 2020, her requests to Mr Hedge and AFSA to explain why the contact had been made when they had been in "regular communication" with her, that she had received no explanation for why Global Skip Tracing had been engaged and a "call, engineered to [intimidate] and harass, when, [she has] done nothing wrong", that she had been "further threatened" on 6 July 2020 resulting in a complaint made to "the Human Resources Department of CBP Lawyers" (copy attached) and she had notified the Australian Federal Police of what had occurred. (6) Ms Kostov said that all she had been trying to do was have her "wrongfully made" bankruptcy set aside to regain her "former earning capacity" and "move on, from a difficult period of my life, caused by illness", but instead was "threatened, attacked, by a Government Department, and CBP Lawyers, further claiming $75,000 in unverified costs, when [she had] done nothing wrong". Ms Kostov says that the Court should not condone such behaviour. 143 At 6.25 pm, Mr Hedge sent an email to the Court's Registry, Ms Kostov and Ms Selim which stated: The respondents acknowledge receipt and confirm that they will appear on Wednesday 8 July The Respondents will be represented by the Solicitor on the record, Scott Hedge 144 At 6.40 pm, Ms Kostov sent a further email to the Court's Registry, copied to Ms Selim as follows (as written): Dear Registry In the alternative to the below, can you please advise Her Honour, I would be happy to provide her oral submissions on the issue of my bankruptcy. I however, do not want to be in the virtual vicinity, of the Respondent, in light of activity of 24 June 2020 contained in my ATTACHED Affidavit. So I therefore propose Her Honour perhaps hear the Respondent submissions, or mine first, provide the Transcript and then make her determination. Perhaps, such will allow the material issue of Bankruptcy to be addressed, and other matters can be dealt with at another time.

[29]

Tuesday, 7 July 2020 145 At 1.48 pm, I caused the Court's Registry to send an email to Ms Kostov, Mr Hedge and Ms Selim as follows (emphasis in the original): Her Honour has considered both of the emails sent by Ms Kostov at 4.06 pm and 6.39 pm last night. On 9 March 2020, timetabling orders designed to prepare this matter for hearing were made and it was listed for hearing on 16 June 2020. On 11 June 2020, the hearing on 16 June 2020 was vacated and the matter was set down for hearing on 8 July 2020 to accommodate Ms Kostov's need to address a death in her family. It is appropriate that the Court have the benefit of submissions made by the parties in each other's presence. Accordingly, the hearing tomorrow will proceed. Her Honour does not accept that either of Ms Kostov's proposals for disposing of the matter are appropriate. Her Honour does not accept that the appearance of the respondents at the hearing is a valid reason for adopting the procedures which she has proposed. If Ms Kostov would like the opportunity for a test run using Microsoft Teams this afternoon, which would be attended only by her Honour's Associates, she should advise Registry of a convenient time and an invitation will be sent to her. As Ms Kostov has raised concerns regarding the proceedings at the Return of Subpoenas on 24 June 2020, her Honour has called for a copy of the transcript, which is attached. Also attached are orders for the conduct of tomorrows hearing using a digital platform. 146 At 3.38 pm, Ms Kostov sent an email to the Court's Registry which was copied to Ms Selim as follows: Thankyou for your earlier email. Please advise Her Honour I stand by my original position, I do not want to converse with CBP Lawyers. However, to assist Her Honour, and out of respect for the time she has provided me on this matter: a) My Solvency - Weekly Income, August 2017 to June 2018 For Her Honour's benefit as to the proof of my solvency at the time of purported bankruptcy of 18 July 2018, please see ATTACHED, proof, I was working full time, since August 2017, at O'Brien Lawyers, through to June 2019, whereby, I had to resign due to a medical condition. I earnt a modest salary of $733.18, paid weekly. I was working as an Assistant only. I would have been happy, after the Easton Costs were properly assessed, for such, to be taken from my weekly salary. I saw, and still don't see, any benefit in being "bankrupt", to anyone, including creditors. Instead, Mr Easton spent thousands, to keep myself "bankrupt", when, the costs were not assessed properly, and further, I had weekly income. I did not resign in June 2018, when declared bankrupt in my abscence, I continued working, for the full year. In any event, I have asked Mr Easton below, if he still wishes, to pursue these costs, in these circumstances, today, below. b) Other Matters - Filing Statement of Affairs In the situation, Her Honour decides to uphold my bankruptcy, I would ask for at least 4 weeks, to file a Statement of Affairs. There is a slight problem, that if those via litigation, decide they wish to join the Statement of Affairs, I do not have accurate amounts as to such, which will take time to assess. I will therefore await her Honour's guidance in that regard. I am currently receiving the Commonwealth payment, of $841 per fortnight, as explained to Her Honour, and have been since July 2019. I was wanting to re-join the workforce, however, this matter, has very much changed my earning potential in my chosen field. Hence my suggestion, the said bankruptcy be set aside, so I can try and retain a higher salary again. There followed an email addressed to Paul Springthorpe and John Atanaskovic of Atanaskovic Hartnell, solicitors, with the subject line "Easton Funds - Statement of Affairs" as follows (as written): I refer to the matters of 2017-19, where yourselves, presumably on Mr Easton's instructions, ran around like lunatics, spending thousands to "bankrupt" me, albeit I was working full time. We all know, that Mr Easton did such for improper purpose, out of spite, likely driven by his employee. If it was money you were after, my wages could have been garnished, Mr Easton could have been smart and offerred myself a 2-3 month compliance position at a fund which would have paid the circa $24000 he says he is owed. Instead of doing such, you spent thousands, to "bankrupt" myself, when, I had a weekly income. Time has passed, and light of CO-VID19 and other factors, it may be that I file for bankruptcy myself. In light of such, are you able to confirm Mr Easton would want to be added to a Statement of Affairs. I cannot reiterate how foolish you actions were, but in any event, it is what it is. 147 At 5.33 pm, Ms Kostov sent a further email to the Court's Registry copied to Ms Selim in which Ms Kostov asked that two emails sent on 7 July 2020 be drawn to my attention. (1) The first was an email to Ms Selim, copied to Mr Alderson, Mr Alderton, Mr Findlay, Mr Osborne, the AFSA receiver addresses, and "nadia", "brad" and "darren" at Global Skip Tracing as follows: Dear Ms Selim Please see ATTACHED at 4 material filed with the Court. a) Per the below, can you advise why it is acceptable, AFSA, a Government Agency, threaten and harrass a person on the Disability Pension, where there are no grounds to do so b) Please advise what services AFSA offers, for those on the Disability Pension, which I suspect is not engaging thugs, to call and harrass them 10 minutes, before they have a matter listed in Court C) Please advise, why it is proper, for a government agency, to purportedly spend $75,000 on a Disability Pensioner, including using taxpayer funds to threaten and harass them, at a time of a global health pandemic. I would prefer these answers, to come from AFSA's Regulation and Legal team. (2) The second email was addressed to Mr Alderson, Ms Bondin, Ms McCosker, the AFSA receiver addresses, "brad", "nadia" and "darren" at Global Skip Tracing, Mr Crennan and Tara Bowler as follows: Dear Mr Alderson I refer to the repeated threats from Ms Bondin, who is not legally qualified, suggesting you instructed her, to have Global Skip Tracing, threaten and harrass myself, on 24 June 2020, at 9.50am, in circumstances where, I had a matter listed, before the Court, in 10 minutes, at 10am, before Registrar Cridland. Allegations made, of debt evasion, in circumstances where, the world is lockdown, and further, it is the Commonwealth, who pays my weekly income. Per the below and ATTACHED, notwithstanding the fact Her Honour may in fact decide to set aside such a bankruptcy, even if she does not, Her Honour needs to provide guidance, as to the situation, of unassessed costs, being added to a Statement of Affairs. That is, an accurate Statement of Affairs, cannot be filed, until others, have assessed costs. Please note, that further threats from Ms Bondin, in these circumstances, will simply be added, to the Harrassment of a government agency, in these circumstances. In such a case, I would appreciate knowing, what guidance AFSA provides to those on the Disability Pension, instead of engaging thugs, who call themselves a valid company, to threaten and harrass, those on the Disability Pension, who are being paid, by the Commonwealth themselves. Please also advise, why AFSA, seeks to allege, you have spent $75,000 on a Disability Pensioner, in these circumstances. 148 At 10.26 pm, Ms Kostov sent an email to the Court's Registry, copied to Ms Selim as follows: Dear Registry Can you also please advise Her Honour, that despite what has occurred with the threats of the Respondent on 24 June 2020, which genuinely is concerning, I have tried to download Teams onto my phone, but cannot, even when I delete documents. I don't own a computer at the moment, and cannot download these Apps, onto Library computers. Despite the circumstances, I can appreciate Her Honour would prefer, I give oral submissions, in addition to my filed Affidavit and Submissions. I don't know, if the matter can be part heard, and perhaps a telephone link be arranged. I only have a relatively basic phone, it does not bode well with large apps. Screenshot of my three attempts this evening, are ATTACHED. Thankyou

[30]

Wednesday 8 July 2020 149 I caused the Court's Registry to send the following email to Ms Kostov, copied to Mr Hedge and Ms Selim, as follows: Dear Ms Kostov It will be possible to appear at the hearing today at 10.15 am by phone. Please provide a phone number on which you can be reached. You will be called at 10.10 am to ensure that the systems are working. You will be asked to remain on the line until proceedings commence. 150 At 10.17 am, my associate sent an email to Ms Kostov, copied to Mr Hedge and Ms Selim as follows: We have unsuccessfully attempted to dial you into this morning's 10.15 am hearing before Justice Farrell. Please provide a phone number at which you can be reached or alternatively, you may dial into the hearing at any time using the following teleconference details: [Conference call dial in details] 151 The Court's Registry forwarded to my associate at 10.19 am an email sent by Ms Kostov at 9.52 am to the Court's Registry and copied to Ms Selim (as written): Please let Her Honour know: a) I cannot speak with Mr Hedge on the same line, until the issue of shy he engineered the call of threat, by Global Skip Tracing, at 9.50am, on 24 June 2020 is addressed b) Atanavosivic Hartnell Lawyers/Mr Easton, have not responded, as to whether, they wish to enforce costs per my email of 7 July below. C) I ask Her Honour today, only deal with the issue of my bankruptcy, and, the issues of Removal of Trustee, be dealt with at another time, given, my document requests were rejected Thankyou 152 In the course of the hearing, Mr Hedge noted that Ms Kostov had sent emails to the Court and a large number of other people in which she alleged that Mr Hedge lied to the Court during the listing for return of subpoenas before Judicial Registrar Cridland on 24 June 2020 and stated that he wished to put on the record that, as is apparent from the transcript of those proceedings provided to the parties by the Court, he received Ms Kostov's email sent at 10.07 am on 24 June 2020 as he was logging into that hearing. Mr Hedge stated that: He had no prior knowledge of the contact by Global Skip Tracing. As he understands it, as Ms Kostov has failed to provide a statement of affairs and a current residential address to the Official Trustee, her bankruptcy was incorporated into a program to identify contact details for a number of people in that position initiated by the Enforcement division of AFSA. Global Skip Tracing was engaged by AFSA to identify those residential addresses so that enforcement activity could be undertaken against those bankrupts. Neither Colin Biggers & Paisley nor (on his instructions) AFSA's day-to-day administrator of Ms Kostov's file was specifically aware of the Enforcement division's actions because it was part of a normal and proper enforcement activity. The administrator believes a person employed by Global Skip Tracing did make contact with a relative of Ms Kostov with whom she was then staying, and he is instructed that there was only one contact. He has no knowledge of the matters raised in this regard by Ms Kostov beyond this. There is no basis to the personalisation of Ms Kostov's complaints concerning the contact made by Global Skip Tracing. Mr Hedge submitted that failure to lodge a statement of affairs results only in a fine and is not a matter referred to the Australian Federal Police, on his understanding. 153 After the hearing commenced, at 10.25 am, Ms Kostov sent the following email to my associate which was copied to the Court's Registry and Ms Selim (as written): Dear Associate Per the call I answered this morning at 10.20am, I refuse to speak in the same room as Mr Hedge, until the issue, of why he engaged a third party, to threaten and harrass me, on 24 June 2020, evidenced in the transcript before Registrar Cridland is addressed. I ask Her Honour today, only deal with the issue of my bankruptcy, and not the issues, of removal of trustee. Her Honour has proof of my solvency, Mr Easton, has not responded as to whether, he still wishes to pursue costs, perhaps the Court can contact him. To be threatened and harrassed, by a Government Department, while I am on the Disability Pension, is serious, and horrific, and needs to be properly addressed. Thankyou 154 I read that email onto the transcript and indicated that the Court would treat it as an application to deal only with some issues at the hearing, and not all of the application. I refused that request because this matter has been within the Court's purview since January 2019 and I considered that it should now be dealt with in its entirety. I also refused that request on the basis that I did not accept that Ms Kostov was justified in refusing to appear at the hearing for the reason that she gave. Aside from anything else, Ms Kostov was to attend by telephone, not in person, and it is apparent from the transcript of the proceedings on 24 June 2020 that Mr Hedge made no comment to Judicial Registrar Cridland concerning any contact with Ms Kostov the subject of her email at 10.07 am and accordingly did not lie to Judicial Registrar Cridland about that issue as alleged by Ms Kostov. 155 At 3.57 pm, Ms Kostov sent an email to my associate, copied to Ms Selim, the Court's Registry, Mr Alderson, Mr Findlay and an AFSA receiver address as follows: Dear Associate Can you please apologize to Her Honour regarding this morning. What the Respondent did, the call of threat on 24 June, has derailed and worried me, and rightly so. I have asked for answers from Mr Alderson, Director of Enforcement, as to why a Disability Pensioner, was threatened in circumstances where there are no grounds to do so, it has not been forthcoming. Despite that I still tried to file submissions for Her Honour to assist why I submit the bankruptcy should be annulled. I am on the Disability Payment, being threatened by a Government Department, and further, them alleging, they have spent $75,000 on a Disability Pensioner. It is not acceptable. I am sorry the Respondent actions, has inconvenced Her Honour. Thankyou 156 I caused the following email to be sent to the parties by the Court's Registry at 4.25 pm: Dear parties This matter was heard in its entirety at the hearing this morning. Justice Farrell will deliver judgment at 9.30 am on Tuesday, 14 July 2020. An invitation to attend the Microsoft Teams videoconference will be circulated shortly. The parties are not required to attend to receive judgment. A copy of the judgment will be emailed to the parties as soon as it is handed down. No leave has been granted to any party to file any further submissions in this matter pending the delivery of judgment. 157 At 4.18 pm, Ms Kostov sent the following email to the Court's Registry, copied to Ms Selim and my associate: Dear Registry Thankyou for your email below. In light of the circumstances, would Her Honour be minded, to allow me to obtain a copy of the transcript, and provide Leave, to file further submissions or evidence, in response, before Judgement is delivered, to ensure completeness and fairness in this matter? It is easier for me, to read transcripts, and respond in writing. Thankyou and again, apologies for what has occurred.

[32]

Application for stay 159 On 10 July 2020, Ms Kostov filed an interim application and supporting affidavit. By the application, Ms Kostov sought: 1. Judgement of Farrell J stayed until: a) Applicant be provided with a Transcript of Proceedings of 8 July 2020 b) Applicant be provided an opportunity to provide written and oral submissions in response to such a transcript 2. Any other orders that the Court sees fit. 160 Ms Kostov's unsworn affidavit in support dated 9 July 2020 said (as written): Conduct of Respondent: Threats designed to Intimidate before Hearing, 24 June 2020 3. This matter, was set for Hearing, in 8 July 2020. I did my best to prepare for the Hearing, including filing submissions and proof of solvency, in circumstances where, there has been a difficult personal matter, in June, to deal with. 4. I had further prepared subpoena's and Notice to Produce, one listed before Registrar Cridland, on 24 June2020, which I was prepared for. 5. Therefore, there had been regular contact with AFSA and CBP Lawyers, on a regular basis, to the extent, AFSA stated, I could only deal with a Case Manager, Ms Melissa Bondin, who is not, legally qualified, and purports, to provide legal advice, on behalf of AFSA. Ms Bondin, nor did CBP Lawyers, the past 12 months, ever allege, they could not contact me, nor, did they tell the Court this. 6. At 9.50 am, on Wednesday 24 June, a call was received, from a man identifying himself as Mr Darren Whiteman, from Global Skip Tracing, alleging that AFSA could not contact me, I was engaged in debt evasion, and they would refer me to the Australian Federal Police, if I did not contact them. This, all a lie, as per paragraph 4 and 5, the matter was listed, in 10 minutes time, before Registrar Cridland, at my request. 7. Further, ironically it is the Commonwealth themselves, who has been paying my weekly income, since July 2019, so allegations made of debt evasion, are entirely false. 8. This call, was engineered by AFSA, and CBP Lawyers, to intimidate and threaten myself, in circumstances where I have done nothing wrong, was minding my own business, preparing for a Court Listing. 9. It is very serious, for a government department, to use government resources, for the purpose, of threatening and intimidating, an individual, where, there is no basis to do so. 10. I contacted the Australian Federal Police myself, to report this issue, and have further been advised, to make further enquiries, with State Police. 11. This call, caused upset and concern, and I spent the next week, trying to advertising, why, this occurred. 12. Such, derailed my focus from the Hearing of 8 July on this case, and further, I have serious concerns, as to why, CBP Lawyers, and the Court, find it acceptable, that I be threatened and intimated, in legal proceedings, which was designed to have this exact effect, to cause me to lose focus, on the Hearing of 8 July 2020. 13. I should not be threatened, by a Government Department, simply, because, I filed a valid action against them, and be threatened to the extent, it caused me, to feel uncomfortable, participating in a Hearing of 8 July 2020, when, I had completed, all the hard work, to prepare my case. 14. I am also concerned, and would like answers, as to why, AFSA are threatening someone, who is currently on the Disabilit/Sickness Pension, and has been, for a year, since July 2019, and further, why it Is acceptable, for AFSA ,a Government Department, to allege they have spent $75,000 on a Disability Pensioner, and why, they therefore, want to bankrupt someone, who is attempting to set aside, a bankruptcy, for an amount, unverified, if less than $24,000. 15. It is an abuse of Commonwealth power, and this needs to be addressed also, as part of my case. A Government Department, should not be refusing, to itemise taxpayer funds spent, to attempt to bankrupt a Disability Pensioner. Non Response from Purported Creditors, July 2020 16. I have advised that, this matter related to an unverified costing, from Mr Easton, of circ $24,000. I had proposed to Her Honour, this be sent back to the Supreme Court, for cost Re-assessment, and the matter, then be determined under the new CO-VID19 rules. 17. In any event, on 7 July 2020, I contacted lawyers for Mr Easton, to ask, whether they still wish to proceed with the enforcement of these costs. 18. I also re-contacted such solicitors on 9 July 2020, again, there has been no response. I therefore do not know, what the position is of the debtor in this matter, and therefore, feel it is important, that be ascertained. 19. I also wrote to Nine Entertainment Company (formally FairFax Media) to ascertain whether they still wish to proceed with costs. Ms Rhianna Fowler, Assistant to the CFO, Mr Koppelman, confirmed my correspondence had been received, however, J am yet to receive a response. 20. It is important, that the Court knows the view of these parties, because, if they, in light of COVID19, are not wanting to pursue past costs, it may mean, they my bankruptcy, can further be annulled, in this basis. Timeframe: 7 day period to respond 21. I would submit, that I would require 7 days, upon receiving the said transcript if 8 July 2020, to respond as appropriate, and I should be given, an opportunity, to make oral submissions accordingly 22. I have put, a lot of effort into this matter, and it is unfair, that I lost my opportunity to be properly heard, due to underhanded tactics, of a government department, who, in essence, are abusing Commonwealth power and funds, to deny someone their chance to present their case, and further, allege to spend, $75,000 of Commonwealth funds, unverified, to "bankrupt" a Disability Pensioner. 23. This is a serious case, and I require the transcript, to understand what has been said in my abscence, and further to reply to such, to properly present my case. 24. The Federal Court, should not be allowing AFSA, to abuse the legal system, and Commonwealth funds, to threaten and attempt to intimidate me, where, I have done nothing wrong. 25. Correspondence relevant to this Application, is at Annexure A. 161 After a case management hearing on Tuesday, 14 July 2020 at 9.30 am conducted by telephone and audio conference at which both Ms Kostov and Mr Hedge were in attendance, the following occurred: (1) On 16 July 2020, the respondents filed an affidavit sworn by Mr Hedge on 15 July 2020 and an unsworn but signed affidavit dated 15 July 2020 of Mr Alderson, acting Director of Enforcement and Regulation at AFSA. The affidavits are to the same effect as the statements made by Mr Hedge at the hearing on 8 July 2020 set out at [152] above. Mr Hedge further confirms that he has never spoken to Ms Kostov outside a hearing. (2) On 17 July 2020, Ms Kostov filed an unsworn but signed affidavit dated 15 July 2020 in which she said the following: Evidence of Police Threats made by Mr Darren Whiteman, Global Skip Tracing, 24June2020 3. The morning of 24 June 2020, Wednesday, I was preparing for a matter that was before Registrar Cridland, on my request, a Notice to Produce, at 10.00 am. 4. It had been a very hard few weeks, due to a family matter, and is still, a difficult time. 5. A telephone rang, at circa, 9.50 am. I answered, however when realised it was a strange call, thought best to see what the person wanted, before divulging any details. 6. A man identifying himself as Darren, asked for an Adriana, and said, that AFSA were looking for her, they could not contact her, they did not have her phone or contact details. He said, she would be referred, to the Australian Federal Police, if she did not contact them He said she was engaging in debt evasion. I was shocked, as I knew, everything he said, was false. 7. I picked up his mobile number from the phone, and said, I would pass on the message 8. I then called this Darren, from my mobile, upset, amd explained he was lying, and the matter was before the Court in 5 minutes. I said, I would tell the Registrar what happened, and the Registrar could contact him He said, he would be "more than happy", to speak to the Court. 9. I terminated the call, and joined the listing before Registrar Cridland, where, per the transcript, I told her what happened. 10. I felt very unfortable about what happened, and, decided to call the State Police myself, and tell them, I had just been threatened, with Australian Federal Police action. My calls to the Police, annexed. I also called the Office of the General Counsel in Sydney, as I was unsure as to what to do. The State Police rold me, I would have to go to the Police Station, and file a formal report. My calls at Annexure AK1. 11. I googled "Darren" Skip Tracer, and a company came up IWF Global, with a Darren Kelly, if whom, I mistakenly thought, was Global Skip Tracing. I wrote the executive, an email, who, confirmed to me, that they called the same mobile number, and it was Mr Darren Whiteman, of Global Skip Tracing, who made the call 12. In that email, I copied in the Commissioner of Police, because, I did not believe, any person, should be falsely threatened, with Police action. 13. I then called the Global Skip Tracing Landline, a Brisbane based company, and spoke to Mr Brad Lyons, about what happened. He said, he had no idea, that the matter was before the Court, the same day, which I found strange 14. I then contacted AFSA, to ask, why on earth, they are alleging, they cannot contact me, when, the matter was before the Court, the same day, and had been before the Court, the past 18 months. I asked why, if AFSA could not contact me as alleged, why Mr Hedge, did not raise this with the Court. I have not had a proper response, except for Mr Mark Findlay, Assistant Director of Regulation, stating that he would refer this matter, to Peter Alderson, Director. I had previously communicated with Mr Brett Lockyer of Compliance, that this matter was before the Court, and he thanked me, per Annexure AK3. 15. When I asked Mr Hedge, why, he had not raised this issue earlier, I was met, with further threats of enforcement action, where, I have done nothing wrong: His email, is annexed 16. As Her Honour is aware, my life, the past 5 years, has been very simple, very straightforward. Illness in 2015 cut my career short, and it took me 2 years, to get back on my feet, and start working again, for only $733.13 per week. As indicated to Her Honour, I was forced to resign in June 2019, for medical reasons, and have been on the Disability/Sickness payment, ever since. It is very straightforward. 17. The only reason, as I told Her Honour, a formal Statement of Affairs, has not been filed, is because, I have not, had a Hearing, with me present, to determine, if I am in fact bankrupt. If, after a full hearing, it is deemed such, then one, will be filed. 18. Despite paragraph 16 above, I would prefer to set aside the Bankruptcy, and attempt to regain my former earning capacity. Instead, I now have AFSA, threatening me with $75,000 in costs, in essence bankrupting myself, and further, threatening me with enforcement action, where, my income, is incredibly basic, and ironically, paid by the Commonwealth. 19. I would think, there should be some law against a Commonwealth Agency, using taxpayer funds, to "bankrupt", someone on the Disability Pension. 20. I would also think, such an agency would offer support and guidance, not threaten someone with enforcement action. 21. I also filed, a complaint with Global Skip Tracing about this matter, however, it turns out, vrge person assessing the complaint, is Nadia Lyons, a relative of Brad Lyons, so such is futile, my Complaint enclosed. 22. He appears to be denying such, but Mr Whiteman, did say, I was engaged in debt evasion, and would be referred to the Australian Federal Police. My reaction, calling the Police thereafter, filing a formal report, proves such. 23. I have no reason, to say otherwise, I was minding my own business, preparing for the matter before Registrar Cridland, only to be ambushed by AFSA, for no valid reason. 24. At no time, did Ms Melissa Bondin, tell me, there were any issues with contact. Instead, AFSA imposed a contact restriction. 25. At no time, did Mr Hedge, say such, and when I asked him, about such, he threatened me, with further enforcement action. 26. I honestly believe, Mr Hedge, was aware of this activity, because, I doubt Ms Bondin, Case Manager, would take action, without consulting, with Mr Hedge first. I also find it hard to believe, my Case Manager, was not aware, of this enforcement action, as she has made it clear, all communications, are to go through herself, per AKB. 27. I believe it is important Her Honour call Mr Darren Whiteman, who made the call, in as a witness, to confirm, he did not tell me, I was engaged in debt evasion, and would be referred to the Police if I did not contact AFSA. 28. I also doubt the genuinity of Mr Alderson's Affidavit, as it I obviously written, by Mr Hedge, who, albeit pretended he knew nothing about this, later threatened myself, with enforcement action, where there are no grounds to do so, at Annexure AK1. 29. I could happily file for bankruptcy myself, and never work again. I have not done such, because I don't think it is the correct thing to do. To be threatened with enforcement action by AFSA, when I have done nothing wrong, and as per paragraph 17, have a very simple explanation, to an issue, if any, which could have been brought up, by AFSA, in this Court, instead of them spending taxpayer funds, to threaten and harrass. 30. I like many others, are stranded at present, due to border lockdown, due to CO-VID19. My movements, as well as many others, has been affected by this, and the situation, does not appear to be improving 162 Attached to Ms Kostov's affidavit are screen shots of a telephone displaying the time "7.50 am 24/06", various unidentified telephone numbers of calls made and received on that day, and copies of emails referred to in her affidavit. Included are copies of emails dated 16 and 17 July 2020 from Ms Kostov to Mr Alderson, Terence Lee, Mr Findlay, Mr Hedge, Mr Osborne, Ms Bondin and the AFSA receiver addresses in which Ms Kostov said: Dear Mr Alderson I refer to your ATTACHED Affidavit. Can you please confirm, you wrote this Affidavit, and it was not written, by Mr Scott Hedge. Can you also please provide evidence, of your enquiries with Global Skip Tracing, where they say, they did not mention the Australian Federal Police. Can you also please advise, why you did not have, Ms Melissa Bondin, who is managing this matter, contact me, or the Court directly, on this issue, instead of wasting taxpayer funds, to threaten and harrass myself. Thankyou and Dear Mr Alderson Further to my earlier email, can you please ensure, that any proposed "enforcement" documents are sent to myself via email, cc'ing in Mr Scott Hedge, Ms Melissa Bondin, and the NSW Federal Court Registry. That way, there is total transperancy on all matters, and the Federal Court, can be aware, of why you allege, you cannot contact myself, in circumstances where, you placed a Contact Restriction yourself. It is innappropriate for you to post documents in circumstances where, I am away, and COVID19 is making travel difficult 163 Late on Sunday, 19 July 2020, Ms Kostov attempted to file further submissions. At the hearing of the stay application on 20 July 2020, Mr Hedge indicated that the respondents had no objection to the Court receiving the submissions. In the submissions, Ms Kostov repeated submissions previously made concerning the onset of mental ill-health in 2015 and her circumstances in 2017, involving reliance on Centrelink payments, living in women's supported accommodation and receipt of a full diagnosis in 2017, which explained why her life spiralled as it did in those years. Ms Kostov said that she would like the opportunity to present this part of her case. She also indicated that she wished to raise the possibility of the application of the "Brunner test", under which people in the United States of America are discharged from liability from student loans where it is demonstrated that based on current income and expenses, a minimal standard of living expenses cannot be maintained if the loans are repaid, that situation is likely to continue for a big part of the payment period and good faith efforts have been made to repay student loans. This was proposed in furtherance of her reliance on a Canadian case in support of her application for orders discharging her bankruptcy if the Court would not make orders annulling it. 164 At the hearing of the stay application on 20 July 2020, Ms Kostov submitted as follows. 165 First, although she had tried hard to prepare for the hearing on 8 July 2020, the contact made by Global Skip Tracing on 24 June 2020 really "threw" her in circumstances where a family member had recently died and she had not been back to medical professionals in the past month. Ms Kostov said that she did not understand why the contact had been made, she felt very uncomfortable proceeding when she did not understand what was going on and why that call happened. In response to the Court's query as to why Ms Bondin's email sent to Ms Kostov on 25 June 2020 (at [110] above) explaining why the call had occurred was not a sufficient explanation, Ms Kostov said that the contact just "really, really worried" her and she did not know what to do. She submitted that she did not know for sure why the call had been made and that sent her off on a tangent. She did not know why she was in trouble and what had been going on behind the scenes. If she was in trouble, she would prefer to be told that by the Court. 166 The Court pointed out to Ms Kostov that the transcript of the proceedings on 24 June 2020 indicates that Ms Kostov told Judicial Registrar Cridland that a distant family member took the call made shortly before those proceedings commenced, yet Ms Kostov's affidavit dated 15 July 2020 indicates that it was Ms Kostov herself who took the call. The Court asked Ms Kostov to explain that inconsistency. Ms Kostov said that she had been unsure who the caller was and she did not know what role Mr Hedge had had in it. She did not know what this was all about and was "freaking out", and that was why she framed the issue as she did before Judicial Registrar Cridland and in the email sent to the Court for my attention at 10.07 am on 24 June 2020. 167 Second, Ms Kostov said that she has realised that she had not provided much information in support of her medical condition in 2016-2017 and the submissions which she had already provided are just a very brief outline of what she would like to present. The Court put to Ms Kostov that she had opportunities in 2019 and again in 2020 to present that evidence in an orderly way and she had not done that. The Court enquired why, in those circumstances, Ms Kostov should have expected that she would have been given the opportunity to do so at the hearing on 8 July 2020. Ms Kostov responded that had tried her best and she finds all of this very difficult. By an application made on 21 May 2019, the Attorney General of New South Wales sought to establish her mental incapacity, and that also "really threw" her. She said that things were in a real mess in 2019. 168 The Court put to Ms Kostov that that did not explain why she had not provided any medical evidence on which she wished to rely in 2020. The Court noted that, at times, Ms Kostov had bombarded the Court with emails, but did not file that evidence. The Court notes that Ms Kostov applied for reinstatement of this proceeding after she had withdrawn her appeal against the vexatious litigant order made in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, thus obviating the need for the Attorney General's application to proceed. Ms Kostov had been given leave to file evidence in these proceedings in March 2020. 169 Ms Kostov said that she has everything but she could not explain why it had not been provided. The Court pointed out that what Ms Kostov now seeks is the opportunity to put on more evidence, and that goes beyond what she applied to do in her stay application. Ms Kostov responded that she had only just realised that she had not provided that evidence to the Court. 170 The Court enquired of Ms Kostov how it would be consistent with the overarching purpose in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and the obligations of parties to conduct their litigation efficiently and cost effectively for her to now have a further opportunity to put on submissions and further evidence. Ms Kostov said that this has been a difficult year and it has not been possible to give the matter priority; further, being self-represented has been difficult. She was not able to secure pro bono representation for her application to review the sequestration order, and so she decided that she had to do this on her own. Ms Kostov submitted that she also gets put on a tangent by "little things", such as the amounts in Ms Bondin's affidavit relating to the Official Trustee's costs, which caused her to "freak out" so that she was distracted from the main part of the case. 171 Third, Ms Kostov wishes to have the opportunity of making submissions in relation to discharge of her bankruptcy by reference to the "Brunner test" which is set out in the submissions lodged with the Court on the night before the hearing. She submitted that she had tried to discharge her debt to Mr Easton, having said that the small wages that she was earning in 2017 in Sydney acting as a legal assistant ($733 per week) could be garnished. 172 Fourth, there has not been a response from either of Mr Easton or Nine Entertainment in relation to whether they wish to pursue their judgment debts. When the Court put to Ms Kostov that this is evidence that these remain owing and the effect of Ms Kostov's evidence is that she cannot afford to pay them, Ms Kostov submitted that the Court is not in a position to know that the debts remain because Nine Entertainment and Mr Easton have not responded. Ms Kostov said that they do not respond to Ms Kostov's communications and it may be better for AFSA to approach them. 173 The Court enquired of Ms Kostov whether she understood that she is, today, bankrupt. After a pause, Ms Kostov said that the way she saw it was that she had not had a chance to sort that out, and it all occurred in her absence and since then, Mr Easton has "gone silent". She said that, as the sequestration order was made in her absence, we do not know if it is correct until we have gone through all of the evidence. Ms Kostov re-iterated her written submission that she could, in 2015, have "gone bankrupt" but she did not, and does not want to do that. Ms Kostov submitted that it is very difficult to pursue a career in the finance sector while bankrupt, and that affects her earning capacity significantly. She submitted that while she was working as a legal assistant in Sydney between 2017 and 2019 she earned about half of what she did in her first year as a graduate and that is difficult to deal with. 174 Mr Hedge submitted that, in relation to the stay application, in the email sent at 10.07 am on 24 June 2020 (see [94] above), Ms Kostov said that "someone" had received the call which would indicate that Ms Kostov had not been entirely truthful. In reply, Ms Kostov reiterated her family circumstances over the past few years, the fact that her family, who do not live in Sydney, did not know everything that had occurred in Sydney and she did not want them to know because she was ashamed of some of her conduct. Ms Kostov said that she wanted the Court to understand that Mr Hedge did not have all of the evidence relating to her medical condition and that in that context, she had been significantly disturbed by the call made at 9.50 am on 24 June 2020 and she needed time to consider its meaning. She does not wish anyone to think she is hiding but due to border restrictions, she is not sure whether she can currently return to Sydney from Perth. 175 Mr Hedge submitted, in any event, all of the emails on the issue of the call at about 9.50 am on 24 June 2020 are irrelevant to the application. If they have any relevance they demonstrate that, had Ms Kostov wished to respond to orders made in these proceedings in a timely way she was capable of doing so. Mr Hedge submitted that Ms Kostov has, since the sequestration order was made in July 2018, commenced actions in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, this Court (including another set of proceedings against the Commonwealth which have recently been commenced and allocated to Burley J's docket), the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory and the AAT. The relevance of that is that Ms Kostov is able to attend to things when she chooses to. 176 Mr Hedge noted that Ms Kostov's affidavit filed on 14 December 2018 at [4]-[10] provides some evidence of her having had some mental illness. It is appropriate to note at this point that, having regard to Kostov v YPOL Pty Ltd at [3]-[9], the Court does not doubt that Ms Kostov laboured under a serious mental illness in 2017 in the proceedings which resulted in the costs order which founded the creditor's petition on the basis of which the sequestration order was made. 177 As to the annulment application, Mr Hedge reconfirmed that the respondents neither consent to nor oppose such orders being made and appear only to assist the Court. He submitted that it is a matter for Ms Kostov to prove her solvency and the Court is entitled to take into account her conduct in these proceedings. In relation to Ms Kostov's application to remove the Official Trustee as her trustee in bankruptcy, the respondents absolutely refute the validity of the criticisms of their conduct which Ms Kostov has raised. In relation to whether Ms Kostov's bankruptcy should be discharged, Mr Hedge noted that, had Ms Kostov filed a statement of affairs as contemplated by s 54 of the Bankruptcy Act she would be discharged in slightly under a year from now as the Court, Mr Hedge and his client had all pointed out to Ms Kostov on a number of occasions. 178 Mr Hedge submitted that no formal proofs of debt have yet been called for because it appears that the estate has no assets. The Official Trustee has dealt with some creditors who have notified it of their debts. That could only advance once Ms Kostov has filed a statement of affairs. If Ms Kostov wishes to negotiate with her creditors, there is a mechanism for that in the Bankruptcy Act by means of a composition with creditors. 179 Mr Hedge said that, while the respondents do not object to Ms Kostov putting on more submissions, they ask that judgment be delivered promptly. 180 In reply, Ms Kostov submitted that she would like an opportunity to respond to the matters raised at the hearing on 8 July 2020 having regard to her "freak out", although she would understand that the Court may be tired of her. In relation to the filing of a statement of affairs, if it is decided that "this is the situation", she is willing to file it but she would rather things be different so that she can get back to a six-figure salary and that may just not be on the cards. In relation to the medical reports, she would like to be able to present them, but she has had some bad experiences where people have tried to "rip them apart". In circumstances where she has gone from a six-figure salary to a disability pension, that life experience is something that she does not want too many people to know about. It has been a rough ride. Her reaction to the call at 9.50 am on 24 June 2020 may have been over the top, but it is explained by those circumstances. 181 The Court put to Ms Kostov that none of the emails sent to the Court in the days leading up to the hearing on 8 July 2020, or on that day, said that the contact at 9.50 am on 24 June 2020 had rendered her incapable of preparing for the hearing. They had only said that Ms Kostov was not willing to appear at a hearing at which Mr Hedge appeared for AFSA until her allegations that Mr Hedge engineered the contact by Global Skip Tracing had been addressed. The force of the submissions now being made by Ms Kostov is therefore different. Ms Kostov said that, while it might be irrational, in her mind Mr Hedge had caused the call to be made at that time on purpose and she just did not know whether or not that was true. Ms Kostov said that that is part and parcel of her condition, and it sometimes happens that she goes off on these tangents.

[34]

Preliminary matter 184 As a preliminary matter, ss 54(1), 77CA, 80 and 267B relevantly provide as follows: 54 Bankrupt's statement of affairs (1) Where a sequestration order is made, the person against whose estate it is made shall, within 14 days from the day on which he or she is notified of the bankruptcy: (a) make out and file with the Official Receiver a statement of his or her affairs; and (b) furnish a copy of the statement to the trustee. Penalty: 50 penalty units. … 77CA Power of Official Receiver to obtain statement of affairs The Official Receiver may, by written notice given to a bankrupt, require the bankrupt to give the Official Receiver a statement of the bankrupt's affairs within 14 days after receiving the notice. Note 1: Section 6A sets out requirements for statements of affairs. Note 2: A failure to comply with the notice is an offence: see section 267B. … 80 Notification of change in name, address or day-time telephone number (1) If during a bankruptcy a change occurs in the bankrupt's name or in the address of the bankrupt's principal place of residence, the bankrupt must immediately tell the trustee in writing of the change. Penalty: Imprisonment for 6 months. (1A) Subsection (1) is an offence of strict liability. Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a change in the name of a bankrupt shall be deemed to occur if the bankrupt in fact assumes the use of a different name or an additional name. … 267B Failure of person to provide information (1) A person must not refuse or fail to comply with a notice given to the person under subsection 6A(3), subsection 77C(1) or section 77CA or 139V. Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months. (3) Subsection (1) does not apply if the person has a reasonable excuse. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (2) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code). 185 The evidence discloses that Ms Kostov has, for two years, failed to file a statement of affairs as required under s 54 of the Bankruptcy Act and she has failed to respond to a notice given by the Official Receiver under s 77CA of that Act on 22 January 2019 requiring her to file a statement of affairs. She appears to have also failed to keep the Official Trustee advised of her current residential address as required by s 80 of the Bankruptcy Act. 186 The Court does not accept that Ms Kostov was harassed merely because an officer of AFSA, its solicitor or any person acting on its behalf states to her the effect of those provisions in written or oral communications or if it employs someone to seek to establish her current residential address for the purpose of AFSA taking enforcement action. Warnings of the possibility that enforcement action might be taken which are designed to achieve compliance with obligations imposed on her by the Bankruptcy Act are not a threat, even though the Court accepts that Ms Kostov was upset by those reminders in circumstances where she does not accept that she was properly made bankrupt. 187 The Court notes that, in response to reminders of the need to file a statement of affairs given to her by AFSA and the Court, Ms Kostov has throughout responded with words to the effect of those set out in Ms Kostov's email sent to Ms Selim and AFSA staff being Mr Arnold, Mr Edwards, Mr Bergman, Mr Sellars, Mr Shaw, Mr McCormack and Mr McCosker on 14 June 2019 (as written): I refer to your ridiculous "advice" below. A person, should only file, their Statement of Affairs, when, they have had a fair hearing, and, truly been declared bankrupt. That has not occured. Only a lunatic, would file a Statement of Affairs, without having a fair hearing - because they may in fact, not be bankrupt - perhaps you need to go back to law-school in that regard. When we have determined I am truly bankrupt, the Statement of Affairs, will be filed. 188 Ms Kostov's belief was entirely misconceived. By virtue of the sequestration order made by District Registrar Wall on 18 July 2018, Ms Kostov has been bankrupt since that date and it is necessary that she accept that fact. 189 The order made by District Registrar Wall is an order of the Court which is in force from the time it is made until it is set aside following a review by a Judge under s 35A of the Federal Court of Australia Act and r 3.11 of the Federal Court Rules. Even though the sequestration order made in this case was made by a Registrar under delegated authority, the Registrar exercised the Court's original jurisdiction in so doing. An order of a superior court of record, even if made in excess of jurisdiction, is, at worst, voidable, and is valid and binding unless and until it is set aside: see Francis v Eggleston Mitchell Lawyers Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 18 at [27] (Rares, Flick and Bromberg JJ) citing Cameron v Cole [1944] HCA 5; (1944) 68 CLR 571 at 590 (Rich J with whom Latham CJ agreed at 585, see also McTiernan J at 598, 599 and Williams J at 607); Re Macks; Ex parte Saint [2000] HCA 62; (2000) 204 CLR 158 (Gleeson CJ at [20]-[21], Gaudron J at [49], [57], McHugh J at [152]-[156], and Gummow J at [216]); D.M.W. v C.G.W. [1982] HCA 73; 151 CLR 491 at 507 (Mason, Murphy, Wilson, Brennan and Deane JJ) and Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Nedlands Pty Ltd (in liq) [2000] FCA 599; (2000) 99 FCR 554 at [24] (Finn J). 190 In Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Nedlands Pty Ltd (in liq) the order in issue was a winding up order made by a Registrar of the Court. Justice Finn's reasoning applies equally to sequestration orders made by a Registrar and I respectfully adopt his Honour's finding that, having regard to the opportunity provided by s 35A of the Federal Court of Australia Act for judicial supervision of orders made by Registrars of this Court under delegated authority, those orders are also voidable, not void. In this case, the Court delegated its authority to make sequestration orders under s 52(1) of the Bankruptcy Act under r 2.02 and item 9 of Sch 1 of the Federal Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2016 (Cth). 191 As Robertson J dismissed Ms Kostov's application for an extension of time to apply for review of the sequestration order on 12 December 2018, Ms Kostov has therefore been bankrupt from 18 July 2018, and will remain so until her bankruptcy is annulled under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act or she is discharged three years after she files a statement of affairs under s 149 (unless that period is extended due to an objection to her discharge). 192 The Court does not accept Ms Kostov's submissions that she is justified in her frequently stated belief that she has done nothing wrong or that her obligations under ss 54, 77CA and 80 are somehow suspended until such time as she attends a hearing which determines that she is bankrupt. Ms Kostov's obligations under those provisions are not dependent on whether or not she has attended a hearing related to the making of the sequestration order and her belief to the contrary is entirely misconceived. 193 Timely compliance with the obligations imposed on a bankrupt under ss 54 and 80 of the Bankruptcy Act is important to the timely and cost efficient administration of a bankrupt estate in the interests of the bankrupt's creditors through the identification of debts and liabilities and the property of the bankrupt available for distribution among creditors. It is important for the trustee to know where personal service on a bankrupt may be effected. Knowledge of a bankrupt's principal residence may also be required for the trustee's execution of duties such as getting in property of the bankrupt estate for the benefit of creditors. 194 Ms Kostov's obligation to comply with s 54 was engaged as soon as she was notified that the sequestration order had been made. Had Ms Kostov complied with her obligations under s 54 in a timely way, she would most likely be automatically discharged from bankruptcy in July 2021, approximately a year from now. 195 The fact that a person with day to day management of her file knows a telephone number and email address for Ms Kostov on which she can sometimes be reached because Ms Kostov has commenced proceedings against AFSA does not mitigate her obligation under s 80 of the Bankruptcy Act to provide an up-to-date residential address. It is plain from the content of emails sent by Ms Kostov to the Court during these proceedings that Ms Kostov has resided in Sydney (where she worked in the central business district in 2019), Melbourne (where she said she went in late 2019) and Perth (as disclosed at the hearing of the stay application). The Official Trustee, as trustee of her bankrupt estate, was entitled to know exactly where she resided at all times.

[35]

Stay application 196 The Court concluded that it should refuse Ms Kostov's application to stay delivery of judgment pending giving Ms Kostov access to the transcript of the proceedings on 8 July 2020 and giving her seven days thereafter to make written submissions. 197 The Court accepts the evidence given by Mr Hedge and Mr Alderson that contact made by Global Skip Tracing to Ms Kostov shortly before the return of subpoenas hearing before Judicial Registrar Cridland on 24 June 2020 was part of a wider enforcement program commenced on 10 June 2020 designed to locate the residential addresses of 45 bankrupts who had not lodged a statement of affairs or provided their residential addresses. 198 The Court accepts that none of Mr Hedge, Colin Biggers & Paisley or the day to day managers of Ms Kostov's bankrupt estate was aware of Global Skip Tracing's engagement and that program had no connection with the proceedings brought by Ms Kostov. The Court finds that Mr Hedge did not lie to Ms Kostov or engage in "fraudulent" conduct concerning these matters and it has no reason to believe that Ms Bondin lied to Ms Kostov in her email sent on 25 June 2020 which is set out at [110] above. That email is to the same effect as the evidence given by Mr Hedge and Mr Alderson. The Court finds that the contact made on 24 June 2020 was not designed to affect Ms Kostov's conduct or any aspect of these proceedings and it would not be a reason to remove the Official Trustee as trustee of Ms Kostov's bankrupt estate. Further, on any rational basis, that email should have assuaged any of the concerns which Ms Kostov might have had arising out of the contact shortly before the return of subpoena hearing on 24 June 2020. 199 In the circumstances, the Court finds it unnecessary to establish what the exact content of the call made on 24 June 2020 was, including whether or not there was reference made to debt evasion or involving the Australian Federal Police if Ms Kostov refused to confirm her contact details. Even if such a statement were made, there is no evidence that any employee of AFSA or Mr Hedge authorised such a claim to be made to Ms Kostov or that the caller would have expected Ms Kostov to answer the telephone at a relative's home or that the caller knew that Ms Kostov would soon after be involved in proceedings related to the return of a subpoena or production under a notice to produce. Further, it is clear from the transcript that Ms Kostov was capable of participating in the proceedings on 24 June 2020 and not inhibited from raising this matter. 200 Ms Kostov sent many emails to the Court and others leading up to the 8 July 2020 hearing saying that she would not attend the hearing (a) if the material which she sought to obtain from AFSA by the notice to produce had not been provided and (b) if Mr Hedge appeared for AFSA without having first explained the misconduct which she alleged he had undertaken in relation to the contact made by Global Skip tracing. Whether or not some of the material claimed in the notice to produce should be provided at all was a matter to be determined at the hearing on 8 July 2020. Further, albeit that it was unfortunate that Global Skip Tracing sought to obtain Ms Kostov's contact details shortly before she was due to appear before Judicial Registrar Cridland on 24 June 2020, by her participation in a case management hearing on 14 July 2020 and the hearing of the stay application attended by Mr Hedge on 20 July 2020, Ms Kostov has demonstrated that she is, in fact, capable of participating in a hearing attended by Mr Hedge. The Court does not accept that Mr Hedge engaged in misconduct as alleged by Ms Kostov and notes that the circumstances of the contact by Global Skip Tracing were explained to Ms Kostov by Ms Bondin on 25 June 2020. 201 Indeed, Ms Kostov appears to have developed a pattern of commencing litigation for which she finds reasons not to attend a final hearing: see [19] above. 202 None of those reasons for failing to attend the hearing of an application which she had brought was an adequate explanation for the course she adopted, even accepting (as submitted by Ms Kostov) that Ms Kostov's condition diagnosed in 2017 might make her prone to getting distracted from the main point of proceedings by concerns which send her on a tangent and which she can later accept were not rational. While that may be an unfortunate truth, it is not an acceptable reason for further protracting proceedings. 203 The Court does not accept that Mr Hedge's appearance at the hearing set down on 8 July 2020 justified Ms Kostov's failure to attend that hearing which she knew was to be conducted by electronic means where she could participate by telephone. Ms Kostov plainly knew of the hearing on 8 July 2020. By her email sent late in the evening of 7 July 2020 (see [148] above), Ms Kostov requested that she be able to participate in the hearing by telephone, notwithstanding the many emails sent in the days before the hearing indicating that she would not attend the hearing if Mr Hedge was present. She answered the Court's call to her telephone at the commencement of the hearing but forcefully stated that she would not participate and then hung up. Ms Kostov also knew that the Court wished to have the benefit of submissions made by the parties in each other's presence (see [145] above). 204 The Court does not accept that procedural fairness requires it to afford Ms Kostov a further opportunity to make submissions or to provide evidence of medical opinion concerning her mental state which has been in her possession at all times during the proceedings. It is notable that the request to provide further evidence was not mentioned in Ms Kostov's stay application or supporting affidavit and the "Brunner test" submissions which she says she wished to make at the hearing had not been identified before she filed her affidavit on 17 July 2020. Given Ms Kostov's conduct throughout the proceedings, the Court had no reason to believe that a further opportunity to file evidence and submissions would not result in further delay in concluding the proceedings. That would likely result in the respondents incurring costs which they are unlikely to be able to recover from Ms Kostov in responding to those submissions, evidence and likely further uninvited correspondence. 205 Having regard to all of these matters, the overarching purpose prescribed in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act weighed more heavily in the balance of considerations than affording Ms Kostov an opportunity to review a transcript of the hearing on 8 July 2020 and provide further evidence and submissions. Accordingly, the Court refused the stay.

[37]

Interim application 207 The Court was not satisfied that it should order any of the relief sought by Ms Kostov in the interim application filed on 21 May 2020 (see [72] above). Ms Kostov chose not to attend the hearing on 8 July 2020 to prosecute the application and it should be dismissed for that reason alone. More substantively, the Court dismissed the application for the following reasons. 208 First, there is no reason to "stay" Ms Kostov's own application (in itself a novel concept) until the respondents itemise the "costs" referred to in Ms Bondin's affidavit as pleaded in the interim application at [1]. 209 Second, the Court understands the plea at [2] of the interim application to be a request that the costs disclosed in Ms Bondin's affidavit be taken into account in considering Ms Kostov's application to remove the trustee. Having regard to the way Ms Kostov conducted herself in these proceedings and the AAT proceedings which she commenced, and the barrage of correspondence directed to employees of AFSA and its solicitors in these proceedings, it is unsurprising that the Official Trustee might have incurred substantial legal costs and accrued the right to remuneration. The Court is not satisfied that costs incurred and the remuneration as disclosed in Ms Bondin's affidavit would justify the Official Trustee's removal either alone or in conjunction with the other matters raised by Ms Kostov. 210 In any event, the Official Trustee's remuneration and expenses are a charge on her bankrupt estate, which appears to have no assets. Ms Kostov will only be liable to pay costs of these proceedings ordered by the Court and those costs must either be agreed by her or taxed before the amount of those costs will be ascertained. The facts that Mr Easton based the creditor's petition on a judgment debt of approximately $24,000 which he obtained in the Supreme Court of New South Wales and that he obtained a costs order for $5,000 as petitioning creditor says nothing of any relevance concerning the appropriateness of costs incurred or remuneration accrued by the Official Trustee in the administration of Ms Kostov's bankrupt estate. 211 Third, the plea at [3] of the interim application is that Ms Kostov's application to annul her bankruptcy under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act might be converted to an application for judicial review to avoid the respondents incurring costs "for an improper purpose". The Court notes the submissions made in Ms Kostov's affidavit dated 18 May 2020 at [13]-[17] in this regard (see [73] above). 212 It is unclear from the terms of item [3] of the interim application whether Ms Kostov is seeking judicial review of the decision of District Registrar Wall who made the sequestration order on 18 July 2018 or the decision made by Robertson J on 12 December 2018 to refuse an extension of time for Ms Kostov to apply for review of the sequestration order. In the Court's view, Ms Kostov's pleading at [3] is embarrassing in the technical sense. 213 For completeness the Court notes that, in Ms Kostov's 18 May 2020 affidavit at [13], she refers to the decision of a "Judicial Officer" which would imply that she is referring to the decision of Robertson J. Ms Kostov has not identified any basis on which Robertson J's decision is susceptible of judicial review in this Court. There is no such basis. The exercise of jurisdiction by Robertson J was an exercise of jurisdiction by this Court. This Court cannot grant prerogative relief directed towards itself: see Bird v Free (1994) 126 ALR 475 (Drummond J); Re Jarman; Ex parte Cook [1997] HCA 13; (1997) 188 CLR 595 at 603 (Brennan CJ), 610 (Dawson J), 616-617 (Toohey and Gaudron JJ), 636-637 (Gummow J) and 647 (Kirby J), Tang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 139; (2013) 217 FCR 55 at [10] (Rares, Perram and Wigney JJ). 214 The appropriate course for review by a Judge of this Court of the sequestration order is by way of an application under s 35A of the Federal Court of Australia Act. Ms Kostov sought to go by that route previously, but Robertson J did not grant an extension of time which was required before Ms Kostov was in a position to pursue that application. The only available course in this Court for judicial consideration of the correctness of Robertson J's decision made on 12 December 2018 would be by way of an appeal. Such an appeal would now be out of time and Ms Kostov would require the Court to extend time for her to file a notice of appeal. Such an appeal would need to be by way of a separate proceeding, which would need to be heard by a Full Court: see s 24 of the Federal Court of Australia Act. In any event, the Court as currently constituted sees no error in the approach adopted by Robertson J in reaching the conclusion that Ms Kostov's application should be dismissed. There is nothing in evidence which demonstrates any irregularity in the proceedings before District Registrar Wall. 215 Accordingly, the only course available to Ms Kostov in these proceedings is by pursuing the annulment application under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act. It is clear that Ms Kostov still wants to pursue that application since the submissions which she filed on 25 June 2020 indicate that she continued to press for an order that her bankruptcy be annulled given the submissions made under the heading "b) Proposed - Annulment of Bankruptcy, Costs, Re-assessment, COVID19 Relief". That application is considered below. 216 Fourth, in relation to the plea at [4] of the interim application, as noted above, Peterson Haines Lawyers has responded to Ms Kostov's subpoena for communications between that firm and the respondents. Ms Kostov's request for disclosure of any pre-existing personal or commercial relationship between AFSA and Amelie Housing is simply fishing. There is nothing in the evidence which would suggest that the Official Trustee's decision notified in the November 2018 letter or the Official Trustee's December 2018 letter was made with an ulterior purpose and any such request should not be allowed. 217 Fifth, the plea at [5] of the interim application is that the decision in the November 2018 letter (see [64(1)] above) be submitted for judicial review. Ms Kostov's affidavit dated 18 May 2020 contains submissions in relation to this plea at [21]-[26] (see [73] above). 218 Ms Kostov did not identify the legal basis on which the Official Trustee's decision advised to NCAT, Ms Kostov and Amelie Housing in the November 2018 letter might be subject to judicial review. Ms Kostov merely noted that it was a decision of a Commonwealth body and reviewable as a matter of law which would indicate that Ms Kostov might be seeking review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act). Such a decision might also be subject to review by the Court under s 90-15(1) of Sch 2 to the Bankruptcy Act (the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy)). 219 In the absence of argument from either party about the legal basis on which such a review might be conducted, including whether a decision of the Official Trustee of the kind reflected in the November 2018 letter falls to be reviewed under the ADJR Act, it is inappropriate to consider this matter in any depth. It is sufficient to note that, as the decision was made on or around 15 November 2018, Ms Kostov would require an extension of time to file her application under either the ADJR Act or the Insolvency Practice Rules (Bankruptcy) 2016 (Cth). Section 11(3)(a) of the ADJR Act requires the application to be filed within 28 days after the November 2018 letter was given to Ms Kostov and s 90-80 of the Insolvency Practice Rules requires an application made under s 90-15 to be made no later than 60 days after the day on which the person making that application became aware of the trustee's act, omission or decision giving rise to the application. 220 Such an extension should not be granted because any application to review the decision recorded in the November 2018 letter would lack merit. 221 The proceedings to which the November 2018 letter related were commenced in the Supreme Court of New South Wales on 3 October 2018, some months after the sequestration order was made against Ms Kostov's bankrupt estate. Those proceedings were the subject of a judgment published by Fagan J on 1 February 2019 as Kostov v Amelie Housing (NCAT Appeal). At [11]-[14], Fagan J found that, as Ms Kostov was bankrupt at the time she commenced the proceedings, she had no standing to commence them since that right was "property" (within the definition in s 5 of the Bankruptcy Act) which had vested in her trustee under s 58 of the Bankruptcy Act and the right to bring proceedings is included within the concept of divisible property within s 116(1)(b). In drawing that conclusion, Fagan J relied on (among other authorities) the decision of McKerracher J in Rana v Musolino [2010] FCA 476 at [47]. Further, at [15]-[16], Fagan J found that the exception to "divisible property of the bankrupt" created by s 116(2)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act for any right of the bankrupt to recover damages for "personal injury or wrong" was not engaged by the proceedings, contrary to Ms Kostov's submissions. Justice Fagan's reasoning reflects the reasoning in the November 2018 letter and I perceive no error in it so that no error of law is revealed in the November 2018 letter. 222 Contrary to Ms Kostov's beliefs as reflected in the materials before the Court, it is irrelevant for the purposes of s 60(4) of the Bankruptcy Act that Amelie Housing locked her out of premises she occupied and her personal effects were sent to storage before her bankruptcy and her view that her cause of action based on those events was for a "personal injury or wrong" is wrong in law. 223 Ms Kostov has already availed herself of a complaint to the Inspector-General about the Official Trustee's failure to consult her before issuing the November 2018 letter. It was the subject of Mr Shaw's letter to Ms Kostov dated 15 February 2019. In that letter, Mr Shaw concluded that as the proceedings to which the November 2018 letter related were commenced after Ms Kostov became bankrupt, s 60(4) of the Bankruptcy Act, which permits a bankrupt to continue proceedings commenced before he or she became bankrupt where the proceedings are in respect of "any personal injury or wrong done to the bankrupt", had no relevance. The Court perceives no error in that conclusion for reasons previously given. 224 Mr Shaw further said that a trustee in bankruptcy had no obligation to consult a bankrupt before making such a decision and the Official Trustee had taken legal advice on the basis of which it made its decision. Mr Shaw also noted that the fact Ms Kostov had failed to file a statement of affairs some seven months after becoming bankrupt "makes it harder for the Official Trustee to administer your estate effectively, and is prolonging the period of your bankruptcy". The Court agrees. 225 For completeness, in the Court's view it was entirely open to the Official Trustee to form the view that it should not prosecute the proceedings commenced by Ms Kostov having regard to its duty to act in the interests of the estate in a commercially sound manner and to seek to minimise the costs, not only for the benefit of creditors of the bankrupt estate, but also for the benefit of the other parties to those proceedings in circumstances where those proceedings sought to recover only a small amount of damages and had no reasonable prospect of success.

[38]

Further amended application 226 The Court was not satisfied that it should grant any of the interim relief sought in the further amended application (see [66] above), not least because Ms Kostov did not appear on 8 July 2020 to prosecute that application. 227 For the reasons set out above, Ms Kostov has no reasonable prospect of success in any hearing before the Federal Court for review of the Official Trustee's decision memorialised in the 15 November 2018 letter for the reasons set out above. 228 As noted above, Peterson Haines Lawyers has answered the subpoena issued to it by Ms Kostov, the substance of which was also sought in the notice to produce issued by Ms Kostov to AFSA for the materials sought by Ms Kostov in the further amended application. On the basis of the materials before the Court, the Court is not satisfied that it is necessary to seek confirmation from either Ms Peterson or AFSA in relation to whether there is any pre-existing relationship; as noted above, the request is just fishing. The materials that Ms Kostov has put before the Court are communications between a bankrupt's trustee and a solicitor acting for a party in litigation with the bankrupt and are not indicative of any improper conduct by either Ms Peterson or any person employed by AFSA. 229 There is no identified basis on which the Court may make an order that the Official Trustee should appoint a case manager with legal qualifications in relation to Ms Kostov's bankrupt administration. There is nothing in evidence which suggests that Ms Bondin is not an appropriate case manager, notwithstanding that she is not legally qualified. Ms Kostov's legal qualifications do not entitle her to the belief that Ms Bondin will do as Ms Kostov directs or that Ms Bondin lacks competence when she declines to do so. 230 As noted above, the further amended application contained assertions by Ms Kostov that relate to her applications for annulment of her bankruptcy and to remove and replace the Official Trustee and they will be considered in that context.

[40]

Annulment application 231 The Court was not satisfied that it should make orders annulling Ms Kostov's bankruptcy. 232 Ms Kostov says that, as a result of a mental health condition diagnosed in 2017 but which affected her from 2015, she was not present when the proceedings in which Mr Easton obtained the costs order which founded the bankruptcy petition were dismissed, and she did not participate in the cost assessment process leading to the judgment debt for the same reason. This appears to relate to circumstances the subject of the decision in Kostov v YPOL Pty Ltd, and in particular, orders made on 11 July and 22 August 2017 by Fagan J. 233 On 29 April 2019, Ms Kostov filed evidence listing medical appointments with doctors whose expertise was not evident and some certificates indicating that she was not fit to attend work for short periods in 2017 "due to a medical condition". That evidence does not establish that Ms Kostov had a diagnosed mental illness which would have precluded her participating in those proceedings. However, having regard to the matters set out in the Court of Appeal's judgment in Kostov v YPOL Pty Ltd at [3]-[9] the Court accepts that Ms Kostov was materially affected by a mental illness in the period up to 2017 when the costs order in Mr Easton's favour was made. Ms Kostov also filed some evidence of correspondence with the Senior Deputy Registrar and Manager of Costs Assessment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in March 2019 in relation to Mr Easton's judgment debt and evidence of an application for review of the determination of costs which underlies Mr Easton's judgment debt, but that process has not proceeded to date. 234 It is not inconceivable that the fact that a person who laboured under a mental illness which affected her conduct and ability to participate in proceedings leading up to a judgment debt might be relevant to an annulment application. However, it is relevant, and weighs most heavily, that: (1) Ms Kostov has provided no evidence that she was unaware of the proceedings before District Registrar Wall at which the sequestration order was made. She plainly was aware of the hearing of her application for an extension of time to review that order: see [19] above. (2) She has not demonstrated any degree of co-operation with her trustee in bankruptcy by filing a statement of affairs or details of her current residential address. To the contrary, Ms Kostov has refused to co-operate with her trustee and sometimes responded rudely to notifications by AFSA staff and Mr Hedge or Ms Selim that she was under obligations imposed by the Bankruptcy Act to do so. (3) Ms Kostov did not file evidence of her solvency in accordance with the timetable for provision of evidence. Shortly before the hearing, Ms Kostov filed an affidavit without leave and sent a number of emails to the Court and others in which she sought to address the debts identified in the original and updated reports filed by AFSA. That evidence does not establish that Ms Kostov was in a position to pay her debts as they fell due as at 18 July 2018 or as at 8 July 2020. 235 Ms Kostov's evidence and submissions, that she offered Mr Easton the option of having her wages garnished in order to pay the judgment debt, indicates that she was not in a position to pay that judgment debt in July 2018. 236 The fact that she was absent when the orders were made by the Supreme Court of New South Wales and during the assessment process is not relevant while Mr Easton's judgment debt stands and she has no apparent means of meeting that debt or other extant debts. Having regard to Ms Kostov's submissions, it is necessary to say the following: The Court is not in a position to direct the Supreme Court to conduct a reassessment. Ms Kostov has not made progress in her attempts to have Mr Easton's costs reassessed. Ms Kostov has only asserted that upon reassessment, Mr Easton's costs entitlement would be less but she has provided no evidence to support that assertion. There is no reason, two years after the sequestration order was made, to wait for any reassessment to be undertaken, as Ms Kostov has requested. Further, the fact that measures to address the effects of COVID-19, being to make the period for compliance under a bankruptcy notice six months from a date in March 2020 and to lift the minimum amount of the debt which must be owed from $5,000 to $20,000, do not apply to Ms Kostov as she had already been made bankrupt well before March 2020 so that her proposal for "resolution" and annulment cannot be accepted. 237 Ms Kostov has not established that she is now in a position to pay Mr Easton's judgment debt or the judgment debt in favour of Fairfax Media. Ms Kostov did not provide evidence that either Mr Easton or Fairfax Media had agreed to waive those debts. Ms Kostov says that her source of income is a disability pension. On that basis, she is currently not in a position to pay those debts which are due. She is therefore insolvent. The Court accepts Ms Kostov's submission that her capacity to earn a substantial income in the finance industry is affected by her bankruptcy. However, that is not a reason to annul her bankruptcy where she has not demonstrated that she is solvent. 238 The Court is therefore not satisfied that it should order that Ms Kostov's bankruptcy be annulled under s 153B of the Bankruptcy Act.

[42]

Application to remove trustee 241 The Court is not satisfied that Ms Kostov has demonstrated that the Official Trustee's conduct in the administration of her bankrupt estate warrants its removal or that the conduct has been inappropriate. She has also not provided consent from a qualified trustee to act as trustee of her bankrupt estate. No creditor has indicated that it supports her application. 242 For reasons previously given: (1) Neither the November 2018 letter nor the Official Trustee's December 2018 letter represents an improper application of bankruptcy law or a "wrongful interference in personal injury proceedings". (2) The Official Trustee was not obliged to consult Ms Kostov or involve her in communications with Peterson Haines Lawyers or Amelie Housing concerning its attitude to the further conduct of proceedings commenced by Ms Kostov against Amelie Housing in circumstances where there was no assets to fund the litigation and no apparent prospects of success based on legal advice. There is nothing in the correspondence between the Official Trustee and Peterson Haines Lawyers which demonstrates improper purpose or conduct. Ms Kostov had no right to demand access to that correspondence in the ordinary course of the administration of her bankrupt estate. Accordingly, Ms Bondin did not err in failing to provide that correspondence to Ms Kostov and her failure to do so does not justify Ms Kostov's demand to have a person with legal qualifications appointed as her case manager. (3) The fact that, had the Official Trustee consulted Ms Kostov, she might have advised that Amelie Housing had made offers to settle the proceedings for $8,000 (in August 2018) and $10,000 (in October 2018) is irrelevant. Ms Kostov's evidence is that she was not prepared to enter into a deed of settlement with Amelie Housing which exonerated it and its staff, a condition of those offers. Accordingly, those offers were no longer available. Ms Peterson had no obligation to tell the Official Trustee that those offers had been made and rejected. (4) Insofar as Ms Kostov complains that the Inspector-General refused to conduct an internal investigation into the Official Trustee's decision set out in the November 2018 letter, the Court accepts the respondents' submission that Mr Shaw's letter to Ms Kostov dated 15 February 2019 provided a detailed response to her complaints. The fact that Ms Kostov did not accept what Mr Shaw said does not mean that her complaints were not addressed. (5) It was appropriate for the Official Trustee to file submissions to assist the AAT by discussing whether or not it had jurisdiction to entertain Ms Kostov's complaint concerning the decision reflected in the November 2018 letter. It was appropriate for the Official Trustee to engage lawyers for that purpose. Ms Kostov's submissions that that conduct was inappropriate and incurred unnecessary cost and her apparent belief that the Official Trustee should have left her application unaddressed on the matter of jurisdiction so as to avoid cost are entirely misconceived. (6) The costs incurred and remuneration incurred by the Official Trustee as disclosed in Ms Bondin's affidavit is unsurprising given Ms Kostov's conduct in these and other proceedings. (7) Although the coincidence of timing of Global Skip Tracing's contact with Ms Kostov on 24 June 2020 was unfortunate, the Court does not accept that it was deliberately timed to occur before Ms Kostov appeared before Judicial Registrar Cridland or that any of Mr Hedge, Colin Biggers & Paisley or Ms Bondin knew that any contact would be made with Ms Kostov pursuant to the enforcement program being run by a different area within AFSA.

[43]

COSTS AND STAY ON FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 243 As Ms Kostov was unsuccessful in all of her applications it is appropriate that they be dismissed and that she be ordered to pay the respondents' costs. At the hearing on 8 July 2020, Mr Hedge submitted that Ms Kostov's conduct would have justified an order being made on an indemnity basis but the respondents elected not to make that claim on the basis that Ms Kostov is unlikely to be able to meet any order as to costs. 244 In their submissions filed on 4 June 2020, the respondents made the following submissions: 49. The Respondents will be pressing for the matter to be heard in a final manner and to be dealt with and dismissed with finality in the event that Ms Kostov does not appear. 50. His Honour Justice Robertson made an order that, pursuant to rule 39.03(2) of the Federal Court Rules, any further proceedings brought by Ms Kostov against the petitioning creditor in the bankruptcy proceedings, Jeffrey Lind Easton, be stayed. Those costs have not been paid. This annulment application is to all intents and purposes a further attempt to review the sequestration order and significant costs have been incurred. 51. In the event that the Court is not satisfied that Ms Kostov has met the necessary onus to establish that her bankruptcy should be annulled and as a consequence these proceedings are dismissed, then the Respondents seek a costs order and also an order that any further proceedings brought by Ms Kostov against the Respondents relating to her bankruptcy be stayed until such time as such costs orders are paid. This order is sought pursuant to Rule 39.03(2) of the Federal Court Rules. 245 Ms Kostov did not address these matters in her submissions dated 25 June 2020 or in any of her correspondence sent to the Court. 246 At the hearing on 8 July 2020, Mr Hedge indicated that the respondents had contemplated whether they should seek an order declaring Ms Kostov to be a vexatious litigant, but had decided not to do so. The Court considers that that was appropriate, given the Official Trustee's continuing role as trustee of Ms Kostov's bankrupt estate and the fact that, as a trustee in bankruptcy, it is subject to the Court's supervision. 247 Having said that, the Court accepts that by these proceedings, Ms Kostov did, in effect, seek to review the sequestration order by her suggestion that the proceedings should be converted into judicial review proceedings. By seeking review of the decision advised in the November 2018 letter, Ms Kostov has sought to re-litigate issues decided by Fagan J in Kostov v Amelie Housing (NCAT Appeal) at [11]-[16]. Indeed, in the proceedings with Amelie Housing in NCAT and the Supreme Court of New South Wales which are the subject of many judgments, Ms Kostov demonstrated persistence of an unusual order and a frequent failure to attend at hearings to prosecute her applications indicative of a vexatious litigant. 248 The Court also accepts that Ms Kostov's correspondence with employees of the respondents and their lawyers has been harassing and contrary to a direction given to her on 29 April 2020 to communicate with AFSA through Ms Bondin pursuant to AFSA's Unreasonable Complaint Conduct Policy. Even though, at the hearing of her stay application on 20 July 2020, Ms Kostov demonstrated that she has some insight in relation to her conduct, that insight has not been sufficient to prevent her making unjustified demands on the respondents' staff and legal representatives and it has resulted in unnecessary applications to this Court. It is notable that, despite the energy Ms Kostov put into obtaining correspondence between Peterson Haines Lawyers and the fact that both Peterson Haines Lawyers and AFSA have responded to a subpoena and a notice to produce by producing documents, enquiries with the Court's Registry indicate that she has not sought to uplift them to date, even though it is clear from the transcript of the proceedings on 24 June 2020 that Judicial Registrar Cridland indicated that they would be made available to Ms Kostov electronically if she applied to the Registry for them. 249 Accordingly, the Court determined that it was appropriate make orders under r 39.03(2) of the Federal Court Rules limiting Ms Kostov's capacity to bring further proceedings for some or all of the same causes of action or relief as that sought in these proceedings until she has paid the respondents' costs. The Court appreciates that that would be a substantial limitation, given Ms Kostov's financial situation, but the Court considers it justified by the Ms Kostov's conduct of these proceedings and the lack of merit of her applications. I certify that the preceding two hundred and forty-nine (249) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Farrell.

Kostov (Bankrupt) v Australian Financial Security Authority, in the matter of Kostov

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (43 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (8)

Cases Cited (20)

Cited By (4)