Mehajer v Weston in his capacity as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Mehajer

Consideration 38 Mr Mehajer's submissions may be summarised as follows: (1) he requested the trustee on many occasions to lodge objections to the notices of assessment or to consent to Mr Mehajer lodging such objections; (2) the trustee refused to lodge objections or provide his consent to Mr Mehajer doing so; (3) the trustee's refusal was the product of the ATO providing funding to the trustee to investigate Mr Mehajer's bankrupt estate; and (4) whilst the trustee did provide consent on 25 February 2022, this was belated and raises questions as to whether such consent was provided only because of this proceeding. 39 I am not satisfied that any aspect of the first two grounds suggests that an inquiry is warranted, for the reasons set out below. 40 The trustee took the position in May 2018 that prior to providing his consent to the filing of the objections, he wished to consider whether he was dissatisfied with the notices of assessment (or, put another way, that a challenge to the notices of assessment would be an exercise advantageous to the estate). In my view, this position was well open to the trustee. 41 The trustee also took the position that in order to consider whether he was dissatisfied with the notices of assessment he required further information. Again, this position was well open to the trustee. 42 Mr Mehajer's submissions contend that the trustee's failure to lodge objections or to authorise Mr Mehajer to do so is of itself conduct requiring investigation. That contention does not engage with the positions taken by the trustee, which were well open to him, and must be rejected. 43 Mr Mehajer's contention also does not engage with the fact that the trustee requested further information from him and this was not provided to the trustee: see the trustee's 7 May 2018 letter to Mr Mehajer indicating that the trustee had insufficient information ([23] above); the requests in the trustee's 30 and 31 October 2019 emails for a copy of all documentation relied upon by Mr Mehajer to found the objections ([27] and [28] above); the further indication in the trustee's 22 November 2019 email that the trustee was not in a position to consider consenting to Mr Mehajer's requests to object to the notices of assessment unless the particulars relied upon for such objections were provided ([29] above); and the evidence of Mr Calabria that the information sought had not been provided (see [35] above). 44 Mr Mehajer also relied upon the fact that subsequently, in February 2022, the trustee provided his consent (see [37] above). The trustee's change of position is unexplained in the evidence before the Court on this application. The trustee submitted that notwithstanding the lack of information from Mr Mehajer, and in the face of continued threats of litigation by Mr Mehajer, and particularly in circumstances where the trustee remained unfunded and had collected at least four lump-sum costs orders against Mr Mehajer in relation to unsuccessful proceedings filed by him, all of which remain unpaid, the trustee gave consent to Mr Mehajer to proceed with objections against assessments issued by the ATO. However, that submission was not supported by evidence. 45 This change of position does invite questions as to why it occurred. However, it does not gainsay the proposition that the stance previously taken by the trustee was one open to him. Similarly, it was open to the trustee to change his position without such change being the product of any maladministration by him. In any event, Mr Mehajer obtained the consent that he desired. 46 As noted above, Mr Mehajer also submitted that the trustee's initial position was the product of the fact that the ATO had provided funding to the trustee. Whilst there is evidence that the ATO provided some funding to the trustee (see [36] above), there is no evidence to support the grave allegation that the trustee did not cause an objection to be lodged because of such funding.

F. Ground 3: DID THE TRUSTEE ERR IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE PROOFS OF DEBT LODGED against the Bankrupt Estate? If yes, does that error warrant the replacement of the Trustee? 47 The essence of this ground is Mr Mehajer's complaint that the trustee should have already adjudicated upon proofs of debt lodged with respect to Mr Mehajer's bankrupt estate, and that as a result the administration has been more expensive than it should have been and this has caused Mr Mehajer considerable financial and personal prejudice.

Background 48 It is common ground that there has been no adjudication of proofs of debt. 49 The trustee has indicated that he does not propose to do so unless sufficient funds are received into the estate to allow a distribution to creditors. For example, on 18 July 2019, the trustee's office wrote to Mr Mehajer: As the Bankrupt Estate is unfunded, the trustee does not intend to formally adjudicate on the ATO's claim or any other creditor claims. The trustee will formally adjudicate on creditor claims in the event sufficient funds are received into the estate to enable a dividend distribution to creditors. 50 On 13 April 2020, Mr Mehajer wrote to the trustee's solicitors (as written): To keep the ball rolling, could we agree to appoint a third party (not the trustee) to adjudicate the proof of debts current listed in the Report to Creditors schedule. I will arrange for the funding, since this is your clients issue. 51 On 14 April 2020, the trustee's solicitor responded: The Trustee cannot agree to the creditors' claims being adjudicated by a third-party. It is the Trustee's role to adjudicate those claims, once a Notice of Intention to Declare a Dividend has been issued. Such a Notice will be issued if the Trustee realises, or expects to realise, sufficient funds to pay a dividend to creditors. We note your recognition of this timing in your written submissions recently filed in Proceedings No. NSD2185/2019. As previously advised, the Trustee does not intend to incur the costs of adjudicating the creditors' claims until it is necessary to do so (i.e. once a Notice of Intention to Declare a Dividend has been issued). 52 The trustee's estimate of the net asset position of the estate was a deficiency of $23,795,195 as at the date of the second report in October 2018 and $25,547,454 as at the date of the third report in May 2021.

Consideration 53 The approach taken by the trustee in not (calling for and then) adjudicating upon proofs of debt unless there is a prospect of a dividend to creditors was well open to him, and orthodox. 54 Section 140(1) of the Act requires the trustee of the estate of a bankrupt to act with all convenient speed to declare and distribute dividends amongst those creditors who have proved their debts. Before doing so, the trustee is required to give written notice of the trustee's intention to declare the dividend to anyone the trustee knows who claims, or might claim to be, a creditor but has not lodged a proof of debt: s 140(2) of the Act. The trustee is then required to consider each proof of debt: s 102 of the Act. 55 All of these steps are premised upon the trustee having formed the view that a dividend may be payable. This is a matter for the judgment of the trustee. Until such time is reached, the trustee cannot be criticised for failing to adjudicate upon proofs of debt: see Bell at [44] to [47]. 56 In the present case, the trustee has formed, as expressed in the second and third reports, the view that the payment of a dividend is "Unlikely at present". 57 I see no basis to impugn the trustee's formation of that view, particularly given the trustee's estimates of the net asset position of the estate (see [52] above). 58 Mr Mehajer submitted that the trustee cannot, as a matter of logic, determine the quantum of the estate's liabilities, its net asset position and whether a dividend is likely to be payable, without determining proofs of debt asserting such liabilities. 59 I do not accept that submission. It is open to a trustee to form a preliminary view, on the information provided to the trustee, as to the liabilities of the estate. This involves an exercise of judgment by the trustee. It may be that in a particular case, an applicant is able to prove that a trustee formed such a preliminary view improperly. However there is no evidence on this application capable of supporting such a finding or warranting an inquiry.

G. Ground 4: DID THE TRUSTEE SELL A PROOF OF DEBT TO SC LOWY PRIMARY INVESTMENTS LTD? If yes, does that action warrant the replacement of the Trustee? 60 The essence of this ground is a complaint by Mr Mehajer that the trustee "sold a proof of debt" to SC Lowy.

Background 61 There is no evidence that the trustee sold a proof of debt to SC Lowy. 62 There was however an assignment of a debt (not by the trustee) to SC Lowy. The evidence concerning that assignment is as follows. 63 On 30 June 2017, Justice Robb in the Supreme Court of New South Wales made orders in In the matter of Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2017] NSWSC 881, including an order that Mr Mehajer and Mr Khadijeh Mehajer (qua the third and fourth defendants) pay the costs of Mr Michael Hogan and Mr Christian Sprowles who, qua administrators of Sydney Project Group Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) and S.E.T. Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed), were the plaintiffs in that proceeding (costs order debt). 64 On 4 September 2018, Mr Hogan and Mr Sprowles entered into a Deed of Assignment with SC Lowy. Pursuant to that Deed Mr Hogan and Mr Sprowles (now qua liquidators of Sydney Project Group and S.E.T. Services) assigned the costs order debt to SC Lowy. 65 On 11 September 2018, the solicitors for SC Lowy, wrote to Mr Mehajer providing notice of the assignment of the costs order debt to SC Lowy. 66 On 17 September 2018, the solicitors for SC Lowy wrote to the solicitors for the trustee notifying them of, inter alia, the costs order, the assignment of the costs order debt to SC Lowy, and the notification to Mr Mehajer of that assignment; and lodging a proof of debt in Mr Mehajer's bankrupt estate in respect of the assigned costs order debt. That letter and its attachments were tendered in the Second Annulment Proceeding brought by Mr Mehajer.

Consideration 67 As there is no evidence that the trustees sold a proof of debt to SC Lowy, this ground fails at the outset. Whilst there is evidence that a debt was assigned by Mr Hogan and Mr Sprowles to SC Lowy, the trustee was not a party to such an assignment. There is also no evidence that the trustee was aware, prior to 17 September 2018, that such an assignment had occurred. 68 Mr Mehajer's submissions reveal the following complaints. First, that SC Lowy took an assignment of the costs order debt so as to become a party to the Second Annulment Proceeding and to put itself in a position to oppose Mr Mehajer's application for an annulment of his bankruptcy in circumstances where Mr Mehajer claims that his estate has a cause of action against SC Lowy with a value in excess of $35,000,000. That may or may not be so, but it is irrelevant to the present proceeding which is concerned with whether there should be an inquiry into the trustee's conduct. 69 Secondly, that the trustee has worked with SC Lowy since the commencement of the hearing in the Second Annulment Proceeding in circumstances where the trustee is aware that Mr Mehajer's bankrupt estate has a claim against SC Lowy of at least $35,000,000. There is no evidence in support of this submission, much less in support of Mr Mehajer's extravagant (and rejected) submission that both SC Lowy and the trustee were dishonest or "dodgy". 70 Thirdly, that he was not provided with notice of the assignment. This complaint appears to be contrary to the contemporaneous correspondence described at [65] and [66] above and to the evidence that the notice of assignment was tendered during the Second Annulment Proceeding. In any event, it is of no moment to a consideration of the conduct of the trustee whether Mr Mehajer received notice of the assignment of the costs order debt.

H. Ground 5: WAS THE TRUSTEE OBLIGED TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE OFFER FROM ZENAH OSMAN and Khaled Osman to purchase the "SCLOWY Hong Kong Cause of Action"? (a) If yes, did the Trustee fail to do so?; (b) If yes, does the failure warrant the replacement of the Trustee? 71 The essence of this ground is that Mr Mehajer's bankrupt estate has a cause of action against SC Lowy with a value in excess of $35,000,000; that Ms Zenah Osman and Dr Khaled Osman (the sister and brother-in-law of Mr Mehajer), or Ms Osman alone, made an offer (or offers) to purchase that cause of action from the estate; and that the trustee failed to properly consider that offer (or offers).

Background 72 SC Lowy is a lender based in Hong Kong. 73 Mr Mehajer claims to have a cause of action against SC Lowy arising out of SC Lowy's funding of a development known as Skypoint Towers at Lidcombe. Mr Mehajer tendered a "valuation" of that claimed cause of action which ascribed to it a value of $35,500,000. Having considered that "valuation", I place no weight upon it given that, inter alia, the valuer has not explained his expertise and the valuation contains a number of opinions for which no reasoning has been provided. In any event, little turns on the true value of such a cause of action. 74 On or around 12 February 2020, Ms Osman and Dr Osman made an offer to purchase the purported cause of action against SC Lowy for $100,000. The trustee subsequently sought proof of their ability to pay that amount and such evidence was provided. 75 On 13 February 2020, Mr Mehajer wrote to the trustee's office asking whether the offer had been accepted or refused, and for an urgent response. 76 On 19 February 2020, the trustee's office responded: The Trustee is currently considering the offer and liaising with other potential interested parties in relation to same. Please note the process in relation to a sale and assignment of a cause of action can be quite an involved process, including but not limited to liaising with our lawyers and considering any legal advice received in relation to same. 77 On 26 March 2020, the trustee's office wrote to Mr Mehajer: We acknowledge Zenah's offer to purchase any potential cause of action against SC Lowy has reduced from $100,000 to $10,000. You have also asked us for details of any other interested parties. As previously advised, I am liaising with other potential interested parties regarding purchasing the cause of action. The process in relation to a sale and assignment of a cause of action can be long and drawn out, including but not limited to seeking ongoing legal advice in relation to same. In the interests of maximising the return to the estate and confidentiality, these details cannot be provided to you. 78 On 20 April 2020, the solicitors for the trustee wrote to Mr Mehajer in relation to the Second Annulment Proceeding: Documents challenging creditors' claims and supporting Skypoint Claims We refer to your Affidavit sworn 27 February 2020 and Submissions in Reply dated 14 April 2020 claiming evidence which: (a) challenges the various creditors' claims made against your Bankrupt Estate; and (b) supports your allegations arising in connection with the Skypoint Towers development (Skypoint Claims). We further note that in the course of the Hearing you stated that you have "bundles of relevant documents", including as referred to at paragraph 44(viii) on page 6 of your Submissions in Reply. As stated in our letter dated 3 March 2020, we are keen to receive any such documentary evidence or, in the case of witness evidence, summaries of the effect of that evidence ... (emphasis in original) 79 The documents referred to in that letter are not in evidence on this application. As noted above, the Skypoint Claims are a reference to Mr Mehajer's purported claims against SC Lowy. 80 On 22 April 2020, Mr Mehajer wrote to the solicitors for the trustee (as written): Again, may I politely request an update on the SCLOWY cause of action offer add by Zenah Osman. This has been the 9th request, collectively between yourself and the trustee (sent either by myself and or Zenah Osman). 81 On 22 April 2020, the solicitors for the trustee responded (as written): Regarding the offers made by parties associated with you and updates provided, we note (non-exhaustively): 1. the offer made by Zenah of $100,000 has been reduced to $10,000 (in respect of cause of actions which you variously value between $30 million and $100 million); 2. on 19 February and 26 March 2020, the Trustee advised you that he was liaising with other potentially interested parties; and 3. in our phone call on 31 March 2020, we advised you that an offer superior to the offers from Zenah had been received. On that basis, Zenah's offer would not be accepted. As also advised on 31 March 2020, we will update you beforehand if any material steps are likely to occur regarding the Trustee dealing with those causes of action. Given this, the Trustee will not incur the costs of responding to each and every one of your repeated requests for urgent updates (at least 9 recently), which are not necessary to ensure we update you before any material steps are likely to occur. Indeed, what would assist the Trustee to continue to assess how best to deal with the causes of action would be for you to provide the material sought in our letter dated 20 April 2020. 82 On 23 April 2020, Ms Osman sent an email to the solicitors for the trustee: I have been advised by Salim that you have rejected my offer to purchase the Sclowy claim (Cause of action) as you need a higher offer. Please know, that my offer was reduced to $10,000 because I was basing it off the report to creditors prepared by your client, the trustee. Based on that report, it's a reasonable offer I make. You say in your email to Salim (as I've been told)- that Salim asserts the Sclowy Cause of Action is valued between $30-100 million. What is your precise validation of the claim, within a reasonable range? Let's move forward please without delay. ... 83 On 27 April 2020, the solicitors for the trustee responded to Ms Osman (as written): Your offer is rejected. We are continuing to investigate the claims against SC Lowy and others. Salim has advised that he has new information and new witnesses in relation to this cause of action. We are hopeful that Salim will produce to us that Fresh Evidence that he represented to the Federal Court of Australia that he has. He has made submissions to the Federal Court that his causes of action against SC Lowy and others have greatly improved, yet over the same period your offer has been reduced from $100,000 to $10,000. In any event, your offer is well inferior to other interest that we have in relation the causes of action. We hereby confirm to you, as we have confirmed to Salim, that we will approach you prior to the Trustee entering into any transaction dealing with those causes of action. Being persistently pursued by you and Salim and receiving from you both, by email, arguments as to why your offer of $10,000 in all of these circumstances is a good offer or a fair offer or a reasonable offer is completely unhelpful and a complete waste of time and money for both our office and the Trustee and accordingly, in turn, the creditors' money. Respectfully, unless there is something constructive that you or Salim have to say in relation to the negotiation for the purchase of the causes of action, in the interest of creditors, we reserve our rights not to respond to any further communication unless it is constructive, helpful or any way necessary to the sale process. The first step of theat constructive process is for Salim to provide the Fresh Evidence to us and the trustee. Separately, please provide us with a copy of the Statement of Claim you refer to. 84 On 27 August 2020, the trustee wrote to Mr Mehajer: 4. We note the last offer submitted by Zenah Osman to purchase any potential cause of action against SC Lowy was $5,000 which was rejected by the trustee. Please advise if a new offer is now submitted by Zenah to purchase said action. and Mr Mehajer responded: Zenah has spoken to me yesterday and the offer is now at $50,000. 85 On 28 August 2020, the trustee wrote to Mr Mehajer: Thank you for your email of 27 August 2020 below. Would you please provide us with written confirmation of the offer from Zenah Osman to purchase the potential cause of action against SC Lowy and evidence of the funds being available. 86 On 3 September 2020, Mr Mehajer provided to the trustee a letter from Ms Osman addressed to Mr Mehajer dated 2 September 2020 which stated: I confirm that I am willing to pay $50,000 to purchase the SCLOWY Cause of Action from DW Advisory. This offer expires on Monday 7 September 2020 at 4.00PM. I trust this letter should suffice. 87 On 7 September 2020, Mr Mehajer wrote to the solicitors for the trustee seeking an update on Ms Osman's $50,000 offer: 88 On 22 September 2020, the trustee wrote to Mr Mehajer in connection with a number of matters that the trustee contended Mr Mehajer had failed to adequately address despite several requests that he do so, including the potential claim against SC Lowy. Relevantly, the trustee wrote: 7. Potential claim against SC Lowy You have repeatedly been requested to provide all documents, material and/or information regarding your allegations arising in connection with the Skypoint development at 36-44 John Street, Lidcombe NSW (including, and by no means only, by letter from my lawyers to you dated 20 April 2020, copy attached). You have not provided the following documents despite having been identified by you in previous Affidavits: ... … You are directed to produce the evidence referred to in relation to points 7. I. to III. above. I reiterate that should you fail to produce the requested information/documents by 23 October 2020, such failure may lead to me lodging an objection to your automatic discharge from bankruptcy pursuant to Section 149D(1)(d) of the Act. (emphasis in original) 89 On 13 November 2020, Mr Mehajer sent to the trustee a response to the trustee's 22 September 2020 letter (which response was dated 18 October 2020 - see [163] below). Mr Mehajer's letter included in answer to the first paragraph of the 22 September 2020 letter: I have already provided the trustee with all the information I have available. As the trustee may already know I am suing SCLowy for damages done - and it is in my best interest for my case to present all the material to the court. I have already provided the trustee with copies of all my affidavits that I have filed and rely on. 90 In response to the requests for further documents identified by Mr Mehajer in previous affidavits, Mr Mehajer provided some further information, and with respect to some of the documents indicated that he had not located such documents.

Consideration 91 Mr Mehajer submitted that the trustee had failed to act upon "the offer" and had "brushe(d) Ms Osman away". That submission is contrary to the evidence and is rejected. 92 As the evidence set out above demonstrates, the trustee: (1) in February 2020 received an offer from Ms Osman (and Dr Osman) of $100,000, which he indicated on 19 February 2020 he was considering and may take legal advice upon. The trustee also indicated that he was liaising with other potentially interested parties; (2) in March 2020 acknowledged that Ms Osman's offer had been reduced to $10,000; (3) on 31 March 2020, indicated to Mr Mehajer that an offer superior to Ms Osman's offer had been received and as such her offer would not be accepted; (4) on 20 April 2020, sought further details of the alleged claim against SC Lowy, by reference to an affidavit and submissions that Mr Mehajer had filed in the Second Annulment Proceeding; (5) on 22 and 27 April 2020, confirmed the status of the negotiations to that point, stated that he awaited further evidence from Mr Mehajer and stated that Ms Osman's offer was not the best offer that had been received and would not be accepted; and (6) did not accept Ms Osman's increased offer of $50,000 and reiterated his request for relevant information. 93 I discern nothing in this course of events which suggests that the trustee acted otherwise in accordance with his duties. He engaged with the various offers that were made by Ms Osman and pressed for information that was relevant to his consideration of those offers. This ground raises no issue warranting an inquiry.

I. Ground 6: DID THE TRUSTEE ERR IN INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING PERSONS OR ENTITIES as either secured or unsecured creditors of the Bankrupt in the Reports to Creditors: (a) ACE Demolition & Excavation Pty Ltd for $6.2 million; (b) Ahmad Jaghbir for $100,000; and (c) AnpinG Yan for $25,000? If yes, does that error warrant the replacement of the Trustee? 94 The essence of this ground is Mr Mehajer's complaint that three particular parties were included in a list of creditors in the trustee's report to creditors.

Background 95 On 15 October 2018, the trustee issued his second report. That report included a list of secured and unsecured claims identified by the trustee including three parties who had not lodged proofs of debt: ACE Demolition & Excavation Pty Ltd, Ahmad Jaghbir and Anping Yan. 96 As at 4 December 2020, the trustee had not called for formal proofs and had not adjudicated any creditors' claims.

ACE 97 ACE was listed for an amount claimed by it of $6,200,000 based in part upon a Commercial List Summons filed in Supreme Court of New South Wales Proceedings 2018/39427, in which a claim for that amount had been made. ACE had not lodged a proof of debt as at 4 December 2020. As at that date the trustee was not aware of any documentation by which ACE accepted that the debt of $6,200,000 was not currently owing. 98 In the Second Annulment Proceeding, Mr Mehajer gave oral evidence in re-examination that, "ACE Demolition has been paid in full". That evidence was not accepted. Lee J held (Mehajer v Weston in his capacity as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Salim Mehajer [2019] FCA 1713 at [53]): For the avoidance of any doubt, however, if I was required to make a finding as to the position relating to ACE Demolition, given no evidence was adduced by Mr Mehajer other than in re-examination which would corroborate a discharge of the debt to ACE Demolition, then I consider it is more probable than not that that amount is still owing to ACE Demolition.

Ahmad Jaghbir 99 Ahmad Jaghbir was listed as an unsecured creditor for an amount of $100,000 based on verbal advice to a member of the trustee's staff that he was a creditor of Mr Mehajer's bankrupt estate for that amount.

Anping Yan 100 Anping Yan was included in the list of unsecured creditors for $25,500 based upon published media reports. 101 Mr Mehajer's evidence is that he has lost confidence in the trustee as a result of the inclusion of these debts in the second report to creditors (among other reasons). Mr Mehajer did not seek to prove that the three impugned debts were not owing.

Consideration 102 The inclusion of these persons as creditors in a report to creditors is not a matter warranting an inquiry. Whilst Mr Mehajer might assert that he owes nothing to these persons (a matter which he did not attempt to prove), his complaint is premature in circumstances where the trustee had not called for proofs of debt, much less made an adjudication upon such proofs as were submitted. 103 I note further that the proposition that Mr Mehajer is not indebted to ACE is inconsistent with the position he took with respect to garnering the support of sufficient creditors to call a meeting in order to replace the trustee, where he put forward ACE as a creditor (see ground 9 below).

J. Ground 7: HAVE THE ACTIONS OF THE TRUSTEE CAUSED THE BANKRUPT "extreme hardship, mental distress, severe anxiety, pressure from family members, unjustified discomfitures"? If yes, does that warrant the replacement of the Trustee? 104 The essence of this ground is Mr Mehajer's complaint that the trustee has acted in such a way as to cause Mr Mehajer the consequences set out in ground 7. 105 It is apparent from the correspondence that has passed between them that there is tension in the relationship between Mr Mehajer and the trustee. However, there is no evidentiary basis from which to conclude that the trustee is the cause of such tension much less that there has been conduct of the trustee which warrants an inquiry. 106 Further, in circumstances where Mr Mehajer has not established that any of the other grounds warrant an inquiry, he has not established that the conduct complained of in those grounds warrants an inquiry into this more general complaint.

K. Ground 8: IS THE TRUSTEE AFFECTED BY A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? If yes, does that warrant the replacement of the Trustee? 107 The essence of this ground is Mr Mehajer's complaint that the trustee has a conflict of interest arising from his move from Pitcher Partners to Dean-Willcocks Advisory (DW Advisory).

Background 108 On 1 March 2020, the trustee and a number of his staff members left Pitcher Partners for DW Advisory. 109 Mr Mehajer is concerned that a conflict of interest has arisen because a principal of DW Advisory is Mr Anthony Elkerton, with whom Mr Mehajer has had previous dealings. 110 Upon being informed that the trustee had moved to DW Advisory, Mr Mehajer made contact (via email) with the trustee and his assistant Mr Ragu Nith. He then contacted Mr Nith (by telephone) and had a lengthy discussion, in which he expressed his concerns regarding Mr Elkerton. 111 Mr Mehajer did not wish to elaborate on the specifics of what occurred because of his reservations about making certain issues known to the media.

Consideration 112 Mr Mehajer submitted that he should not be put in a situation to disclose to the Court the nature of the conflict and that if the Court does not decide to replace the trustee, then the trustee will cause further problems for Mr Mehajer. However, absent such information the Court is not in a position to consider whether this ground has any substance. On the evidence provided by Mr Mehajer it is not apparent that the trustee might have a conflict of interest. 113 Thus, this ground does not warrant an inquiry into the trustee's conduct.

L. Ground 9: Creditors meeting 114 The essence of this ground is Mr Mehajer's complaint that the trustee failed to convene a creditors meeting at which a resolution would be put for the replacement of the trustee.

Background 115 On 31 August 2020, Mr Mehajer wrote to the trustee (as written): I wish to advise you that my creditors and I have together decided that we should urgently call a meeting to change the trustee. To call for the meeting to change trustee's, could you please advise us what you would require from me. We have a trustee that will come on board right away. Would you require this in writing also to call for a meeting. The creditors are: 1. JFI holdings Pty Ltd and the assignee 2. Charles Gittany and the assignee 3. Ace Demolition & Excavations Pty Ltd (emphasis in original) 116 On 1 September 2020, the trustee's office wrote to Mr Mehajer: We refer to your email of 31 August 2020 below. Please note that pursuant to Section 75-15 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy), the Trustee must convene a meeting if either of the following circumstances are met: I. The majority of creditors in number and dollar value direct the trustee to do so by resolution II. At least 25% in dollar value of the creditors direct the trustee to do so in writing III. If less than 25% but more than 10% in dollar value of the creditors direct the trustee to do so in writing, security for the cost of holding the meeting is given to the trustee before the meeting is convened. In the event a request is made per points I.-III. above, pursuant to Section 75-265 of the Insolvency Practice Rules (Bankruptcy), the proposed incoming trustee must provide a signed consent to act as trustee and a declaration of independence, relevant relationships and indemnities. 117 On 4 September 2020, Mr Mehajer wrote to the trustee: I now hold a document signed by ACE, JFI, GITTANY, *AZZAM, Fayka, and HAMDAN (new genuine creditors which have not yet lodged a POD- requesting that a meeting be called to terminate the trustee. ... (emphasis in original) 118 On 7 September 2020, the trustee's office responded: We refer to your email of 4 September 2020 below. We are unsure as to why creditor requests to replace the trustee are coming via you - particularly in circumstances where "new genuine creditors" have never contacted the trustee's office in the past two plus years of administering your estate, let alone express any concerns as to how the administration of your estate has been run. Accordingly, we request that these creditors independently contact our office with their requests, along with their completed proofs of debt and supporting documentation. We otherwise reiterate the comments made in my email to you on 3 September 2020. 119 On the same day, Mr Mehajer responded: Firstly, the creditors are asking me to communicate with you directly. Secondly, the arising creditors, namely AZZAM, FAYKA and HAMDAN never lodged a POD as they did not want to place further pressure on me. I believe AZZAM spoke to you last week. AZZAM is a pharmacist and I am sure he would not be jeopardizing his career if his POD is not 100% genuine. Please, could you answer the question in relation to calling the meeting. 120 Mr Mehajer sent a further email to the trustee (as written): Please confirm that upon each creditor signing the attached document, a meeting could be called. The creditors have asked me to confirm with you how long would the trustee take to call this meeting. IF it is going to be weeks or months, we will consider our options to have an urgent meeting be called. I am not sure of any requirements. Furthermore, these creditors are also majority unit holders of units @ Skypoint Towers Lidcombe. ... 121 On 8 September 2020, the trustee's office responded: We have previously explained to you what is required for a meeting of creditors to be convened to consider a replacement trustee. Please refer to my most recent email of 7 September 2020, a copy of which is attached. As we have previously advised, if you are still having difficulties understanding the process we suggest you seek advice from your proposed trustee or lawyer with bankruptcy/insolvency expertise. 122 On 8 September 2020, Mr Mehajer wrote to the Associate to Rares J and the trustee's solicitor in connection with this proceeding asserting that he had the support of at least 25 per cent of the creditors of his estate in dollar value and that they intended to call a meeting for the replacement of the trustee. 123 On 9 September 2020, this proceeding was adjourned by consent to 13 November 2020. Mr Mehajer instigated the adjournment to enable him to attract the maximum possible support from his creditors to direct the trustee to call a meeting of creditors to consider a resolution to replace the trustee. 124 On 10 September 2020, the trustee's office sent emails to: (1) the solicitors for ACE; (2) the solicitors for JFI Holdings Pty Ltd; (3) Mr Charles Gittany; and (4) Ahmad Gharib in which the trustee's office stated that Mr Mehajer had advised the trustee that each of them, qua creditor, wished to commence a meeting of creditors to consider replacing the trustee; and that the trustee had not received such a request. 125 Only Mr Gharib responded. Mr Gharib was asked to lodge a proof of debt but did not do so.

Consideration 126 This ground is baseless. 127 Section 75-15 of the IPS(B) required the trustee to convene a meeting of Mr Mehajer's creditors if s 75-15(1)(a), (b) or (c) was satisfied, provided the direction was reasonable: s 75-15(1)(c) and (2). 128 The trustee advised Mr Mehajer of the steps required to be taken to convene a meeting of creditors. There is no evidence that these steps were done. In particular, there is no evidence that creditors in the requisite percentage in value wished a meeting to be convened, despite: (1) Mr Mehajer's claim to hold a document signed by such creditors (see [117] above); and (2) the trustee, of his own initiative, contacting many of the creditors which Mr Mehajer had asserted provided such a percentage in value (see [124] above). 129 I also do not accept Mr Mehajer's submission that the meeting did not occur because the trustee pushed him away or gave him excuses for not calling such a meeting. This submission is contrary to the contemporaneous emails set out above.

M. Ground 10: Real property 130 This ground concerns property at 14 Frances Street, Lidcombe NSW (Frances Street Property). Mr Mehajer's complaint is that the trustee did not sell that property in accordance with Mr Mehajer's wishes.

Background 131 A title search dated 16 November 2020 concerning the Frances Street Property records: Mr Mehajer as the registered proprietor; a mortgage registered in favour of National Australia Bank Limited (NAB); and caveats lodged by JFI Holdings, Charles Gittany, Portcullis Capital Pty Ltd, and the trustee. 132 The second and third reports included the following summary of the equity positions in the Frances Street Property: 133 I infer from the email in the following paragraph that prior to 21 August 2020, Mr Mehajer approached the trustee concerning a sale of the Frances Street Property. 134 On 21 August 2020, the solicitors for the trustee wrote to Mr Mehajer: Proposed sale of 14 Frances Street Before the Trustee is prepared to enter into a Contract for Sale in respect of 14 Frances Street (Property), the Trustee requires the following: Signed written agreement from each of you, NAB and every caveator registered on title to: (a) the Trustee conducting the sale (without interference from any of those parties); (b) discharge and withdraw their respective mortgages and caveats to allow completion to occur; and (c) the sale proceeds to be applied as follows until exhausted: (i) usual adjustments and deductions on completion; (ii) in payment of the Trustee's reasonable remuneration and that of his employees (at prevailing hourly rates from time to time) and costs and disbursements (including all reasonable legal costs at the solicitors' prevailing hourly rates from time to time) in relation to, arising out of or in connection with: (A) the sale of the Property; and/or (B) the adjudication of the rights and claims of subsequent charges against the Property (e.g. the caveators' claims), (collectively, Trustee's Costs), (iii) in payment of the amounts agreed by NAB before discharge of its Mortgage as set out in paragraph 1 of the email from K&L Gates on 19 August 2020 at 12.54pm; (iv) in payment of any valid subsequent charges (e.g. the caveators' claims) in their respective priorities as determined by the Trustee; and (v) to the extent that any funds are left over, to the Bankrupt Estate, The Trustee is not prepared to proceed unless all of the interested parties agree to the above, not least as the Trustee is unable to complete a sale of the Property without a Discharge of Mortgage and all Withdrawals of Caveat and so is not prepared to enter into a Contract for Sale until those parties have provided their written agreement. (emphasis in original) 135 On 26 August 2020, Mr Mehajer commenced proceeding NSD942/2020 in this Court seeking an order that the caveat lodged by Portcullis on the title of the Frances Street Property be removed. 136 On 9 September 2020, the solicitors for NAB wrote to Mr Mehajer: Facilities provided by National Australia Bank Limited (NAB) to Salim Mehajer We refer to your recent emails and confirm that we act for NAB. We note your request for confirmation of NAB's position in respect of the proposed sale of the properties located at 14 Frances Street, Lidcombe and 1 Ann Street, Lidcombe (collectively, the Properties). We are instructed that NAB has no objection to the sale of the Properties provided it receives sufficient sale proceeds at settlement to satisfy all amounts secured to NAB by its first registered mortgage over each of the Properties as at the date of settlement. NAB will provide a discharge in respect of each mortgage upon receipt of the secured amount in full. (emphasis in original) 137 On 22 September 2020, Mr Mehajer wrote to the trustee: ... could you please advise what I need (and consent from whom) in order to auction 14 Frances Street, Lidcombe ...? 138 On 23 September 2020, the trustee's office responded: Our lawyers have previously advised you as to what is required in order for the trustee to consider a sale of 14 Frances Street. A copy of the email from Bridges Lawyers to you dated 21 August 2020 is attached. For the avoidance of doubt, the trustee is not adverse to a sale of 14 Frances Street taking place if these conditions are met. Please note however, that as an undischarged bankrupt you do not have the legal standing to auction any real property interests. 139 On 15 October 2020, Mr Mehajer wrote to the trustee's solicitors concerning proceeding NSD942/2020: The proceedings will be discontinued because I managed to resolve this matter outside of court. The trustee should be grateful that I have resolved a $2.2M alleged debt down to $0.0 improving the estate by at least $2.2M. The trustee had issues selling the Frances St property because of the Portcullis caveat. Now, I will have this caveat removed. ... 140 On 16 October 2020, Rares J ordered that proceeding NSD942/2020 be dismissed and that Mr Mehajer pay the trustee's costs in the sum of $5,000. 141 On 19 October 2020, the trustee's solicitor wrote to Mr Mehajer: As discussed with Dominic on Friday, 16 October 2020 following the case management hearing in the above Proceedings, please provide us with a copy of any document relating to the removal of the caveat by Portcullis from 14 Frances Street, Lidcombe (including any agreement, correspondence and/or withdrawal of caveat). We note that you are required to provide this information in accordance with section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). 142 On 20 October 2020, Mr Mehajer sent an email to a Mr Steve Agosta and copied various people, including a solicitor in the employ of the trustee's solicitors in the following terms: I have copied the trustee's solicitor into this email. Reason: I have a duty to provide all documents to the trustee. Unfortunately, I do not yet have the JFI Deed document, which is a document holding up other pieces to my puzzle, such the MOS caveat removal lodged @ 14 Frances St. Please, could we conference to understand what the hold up is? 143 As at 4 December 2020, other than the email dated 20 October 2020, the trustee's solicitors had not received any further response to the email sent on 19 October 2020.

Consideration 144 I am not satisfied that this ground establishes any basis for an inquiry into the trustee's conduct. 145 The trustee was prepared to sell the Frances Street Property provided that the mortgagee and the caveators agreed to the conditions set out in the 21 August 2020 letter from the trustee's solicitor to Mr Mehajer (see [134] above). 146 The imposition of those conditions does not warrant an inquiry and they were self-evidently reasonable. 147 The evidence does not establish that each of the mortgagee and the caveators agreed to those conditions. Further, Mr Mehajer's assertion that the Portcullis debt had been resolved and that he would remove the caveat (see [139] above) appears to have evaporated upon the trustee asking for evidence of such agreement. 148 Mr Mehajer also gave evidence that the trustee advised him (orally) that once the consent of NAB had been obtained, the trustee would facilitate the sale. Such evidence is difficult to reconcile with the import of the 21 August 2020 letter, namely that the consent of NAB was necessary but not sufficient.

N. Ground 11: Discharge 149 The essence of this ground is a complaint by Mr Mehajer about the trustee filing a notice of objection to the discharge of Mr Mehajer from bankruptcy.

Background 150 On or about 3 May 2018, Mr Mehajer lodged his Statement of Affairs with the Australian Financial Security Authority. 151 On 28 July 2020, the trustee wrote to Mr Mehajer providing notice under s 139ZG of the Act: Your total Compulsory Contribution liability for CAPs 1 and 2 is $15,830.37. This letter is also notice under Section 139ZG of the Act that you are requested to pay the assessed amount in twelve (12) monthly instalments commencing 14 days from the date of this letter, namely 11 August 2020 and then the 11th day of each month thereafter as follows: Payment due date Instalment amount ($) 11/8/20 1,978.80 11/9/20 1,978.80 11/10/20 1,978.80 11/11/20 1,978.80 11/12/20 1,978.80 11/1/21 1,978.80 11/2/21 1,978.80 11/3/21 1,978.77 Total 15,830.37

Payment should be made by Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) into the following account: ... Your liability to contribute the assessed amount is not affected by the making of an application for review by the Inspector-General of the assessed amount under Section 139ZA of the Act. Non-payment of the Compulsory Contribution Liability is grounds for objection pursuant to Section 149(1)(f) of the Act. (emphasis in original) 152 The trustee's letter also notified Mr Mehajer that it was open to him to make an application under s 139T of the Act on the basis of hardship. 153 On 22 September 2020, the trustee wrote to Mr Mehajer with respect to seven topics which the trustee suggested "have not been adequately addressed by you despite being requested on several occasions throughout this administration for you to do so". The trustee's letter required a substantive response by 23 October 2020 and foreshadowed that a failure to do so may provide a basis for the trustee to object, pursuant to s 149D(1)(d) of the Act, to Mr Mehajer's automatic discharge from bankruptcy. On the same day, Mr Mehajer responded, indicating that he would provide a response "much earlier i.e. say by 5 October 2020". 154 On 23 September 2020, the trustee's office wrote to Mr Mehajer noting that he had not paid the first two instalment amounts (see [151] above) and directed him to pay the arrears of $3,957.60 immediately. 155 On 24 September 2020, Mr Mehajer wrote to the trustee's office in connection with the seventh matter raised in the trustee's letter dated 22 September 2020, namely SC Lowy. His email stated (as written): Please find attached a copy of my filed Affidavits‐ in Proceedings 2020/108037 (ScLowy). You have asked me to provide you with all the information that I may have relation to this case. I believe I have already provided you with everything that I have available to me. I am now required to subpoena the balance of the documents. Are you able to assist me with the Subpoena's or at least the issue of a Notice/s to Produce? Also, could you advise what the trustee intends to do with the 'Deed of Release' ScLowy and Madison Marcus Law Firm rely on ?This is a Deed which was purported to be signed by me in year 2017? It is important to urgently understand the trustee's intentions in relation to the Notice to Produce and Deed ‐ as I need to make a move swiftly as this was raised in these proceedings. As a bankrupt, I remain restricted to do things ordinarily. Please advise. 156 On 30 September 2020, the trustee wrote to Mr Mehajer: I refer to my letter dated 22 September 2020 (my 22 September 2020 letter) and your email response dated 24 September 2020 (your 24 September 2020 email) regarding your bankrupt estate and in particular your examinable affairs. In your 24 September 2020 email, you have attached two affidavits sworn on 22 September 2020 in Supreme Court-Proceedings Salim Mehajer v SC Lowy Primary lnvestments, Ltd & Ors (your 22 September 2020 affidavits), which I understand to be in response to the information sought in point 7. of my 22 September 2020 letter. I note that you advise that you are "now required to subpoena the balance of the documents". I also note your 22 September 2020 affidavits have not varied in content to your unsworn affidavits dated 20 August 2020 and 14 September 2020 referred to in my 22 September 2020 letter. In your 22 September 2020 affidavits, you have referred to holding documentation in relation to this matter. You have been directed to, and not provided this documentation to date. You have requested whether as your trustee in bankruptcy, I can assist with requesting the Court to issue subpoenas. As the Plaintiff in the Supreme Court proceedings, it is a matter for you to obtain any necessary documents by way of subpoena. For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a matter for your bankrupt estate or me as trustee. You have also requested my intentions as your trustee regarding the Deed of Release entered into between you, SC Lowy Primary Investments Ltd and Madison Marcus prior to your bankruptcy in 2017. Throughout this administration, my lawyers have requested you to produce any documentation to consider this matter further and no such documentation has been produced to date. No further consideration will be given regarding this issue without you providing me this documentation. I also note in your 24 September 2020 email, you say that "I believe I have already provided you with everything that I have available to me". If this is your response to the balance of the matters raised in my 22 September 2020 letter, it is simply an unsatisfactory response. Throughout the administration, you have sworn several affidavits before the Court and made several assertions regarding your financial position including that you hold documents supporting same, and that these documents and information would be supplied to me as trustee. Noting your alleged business acumen and tertiary qualification, I find it very difficult to believe that you do not specifically hold or have access to the documentation/records you have been directed to produce. Should you continue to maintain that any of the documents sought by me in my 22 September 2020 letter do not exist, I direct you to provide a detailed written explanation in respect of each and every issue raised by me in that letter, including why in all the circumstances no such documentation exists and/or is not held by you, Where any such documents are held by third parties, I direct you to supply me with the full details as to the name and contact particulars of each such party and the specific documents that they hold. I look forward to your substantive response to my 22 September 2020 letter by Friday, 23 October 2020. I remind you that failure to adequately respond is a ground to objecting to your discharge from bankruptcy pursuant to Section 149D(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). (emphasis in original) 157 On 30 September 2020, Mr Mehajer responded (as written): Thank you for your letter. I did mentioned to you previously, that I should be in a position to respond to your 22 September 2020 letter by 5 October 2020 despite stating that I am to respond by 23 October 2020. Moving forward, I am going to assume I have not sent you any documents and I will answer your letter in full detail and attach every single piece of document I have­ considering you are a fresh pair of eyes looking at my estate. If this is the case, I will need every bit of time available. Therefore, I will respond to you in detail by 23 October 2020. 158 On 23 October 2020, being the date set by the trustee for Mr Mehajer to respond to the trustee's letter dated 22 September 2020, Mr Mehajer wrote to the trustee's office seeking an extension of five working days. On the same day, the trustee's office responded agreeing to an extension of time to 6 November 2020. I note that this was in effect an extension of 10 working days, i.e. double the time requested. 159 On 6 November 2020, the extended deadline passed without the information being provided. 160 On 9 November 2020, Mr Mehajer wrote to the trustee's office seeking a further extension to 12 November 2020. On the same day, the trustee's office responded: Your trustee has given you every opportunity to provide the requested information/documents and even provided you a further extension of time beyond that initially sought by you. A period of six weeks is more than an adequate for you to respond and the trustee will not be granting any further extensions. 161 On 11 November 2020, the trustee sent two letters to Mr Mehajer. The first enclosed a Notice of Objection to Discharge, which the trustee lodged with the Official Receiver that day. The Notice of Objection set out the following grounds of objection: Ground 1 Paragraph 149D(1)(f) of the Act: the bankrupt failed to pay to the trustee an amount that the bankrupt was liable to pay under section 139ZG Evidence for Ground 1 On 28 July 2020, I issued to the Bankrupt a notice of my determination that he was liable to pay assessed income contributions for the period 20 March 2018 to 19 March 2019 (CAP 1). My determination complied with the terms of subsection 139ZI(3) of the Act by providing 11 August 2020 as the date upon which instalments were due to commence. To date, the Bankrupt has not made any payments towards his CAP 1 liability and he is currently in arrears of $5,936.40. As such, he has failed to pay the amount as directed. The Bankrupt has not sought a formal review by making an application to the Inspector-General in Bankruptcy with respect to this assessment. Reasons for Objections under Ground 1 Given the ground for which part of the Objection is lodged is a special ground under the provisions of Section 149D of the Act, pursuant to Section 149C(1A) of the Act, I am not required to give reasoning as to why the Objection is being lodged under this ground. Ground 2 Paragraph 149D(1)(d) of the Act: the bankrupt, when requested in writing by the trustee to provide written information about the bankrupt's property, income or expected income, failed to comply with the request. Evidence for Ground 2 I. On 22 September 2020, I issued a letter to the Bankrupt directing him to provide information and documents pertinent to his examinable affairs (my 22 September 2020 letter). The Bankrupt was given up to 23 October 2020 to respond to the issues raised in my 22 September 2020 letter and was notified that failure to do so are grounds for objecting to his automatic discharge under Section 149D(1)(d) of the Act. II. On 24 September 2020, the Bankrupt issued a response by way of email to my 22 September 2020 letter (Mehajer 24 September 2020 email). III. On 30 September 2020, I issued a letter to the Bankrupt advising that the Mehajer 24 September 2020 email did not address any of the information and/or documents sought in my 22 September 2020 letter. The Bankrupt was also directed to produce a detailed explanation in respect of each and every issue raised in my 22 September 2020 letter in circumstances where he claimed that no documents were in existence, and to provide details of any third parties he claimed to hold documents on his behalf. IV. On 30 September 2020, the Bankrupt sent by email a response to my office advising that he would provide a detailed response to my 22 September 2020 letter by 23 October 2020. V. On 23 October 2020, the Bankrupt sent an email requesting an extension of time to respond to my 22 September 2020 letter to 30 October 2020. I granted the Bankrupt an extension of time by way of email to respond to my 22 September 2020 letter to 6 November 2020. VI. On 9 November 2020, the Bankrupt sent an email to my office seeking a further extension of time to respond to my 22 September 2020 letter to 12 November 2020. The Bankrupt was advised by email that no further extensions of time would be given. VII. To date, the Bankrupt has not provided the information/documents sought in my 22 September 2020 letter. Reasons for Objections under Ground 2 Given the ground for which part of the Objection is lodged is a special ground under the provisions of Section 149D of the Act, pursuant to Section 149C(1A) of the Act, I am not required to give reasoning as to why the Objection is being lodged under this ground. Effect of Objection This objection has the effect of extending the bankruptcy to 3 May 2026, being eight (8) years from the date of which the Bankrupt lodged his Statement of Affairs with the Australian Financial Security Authority. (emphasis in original) 162 The second letter was in the following form: I refer to my letter dated 22 September 2020 (my September 2020 letter) regarding your bankrupt estate and in particular your examinable affairs. As you are aware, I have today lodged an objection to your discharge from bankruptcy with the Official Receiver, one of the grounds for objection being failure to provide information and documents requested in my September 2020 letter. For the avoidance of doubt, you must still produce the requested information and documents, noting you have had more than six weeks to comply with same and even been provided with an extension of time beyond that originally sought by you. Should you produce the requested information and documents, I will consider withdrawing this ground of your objection. 163 On 13 November 2020, Mr Mehajer provided a detailed response (dated 18 October 2020) to the trustee's letter dated 22 September 2020. On the same day, Mr Mehajer applied to the Inspector-General for a review of the Notice of Objection, pursuant to s 149K of the Act. 164 On 12 January 2021, the Inspector-General, via a delegate, confirmed the Notice of Objection on the basis of the s 149D(1)(f) ground, but not on the basis of the s 149D(1)(d) ground. As one of the two grounds was confirmed, the Inspector-General upheld the Notice of Objection. 165 Subsequently, the trustee (and later Mr Mehajer) each sought review, pursuant to s 149Q of the Act, by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of the aspects of the Inspector-General's decision adverse to them. The Tribunal upheld the Inspector-General's decision to confirm the Notice of Objection: Weston and Inspector-General in Bankruptcy [2022] AATA 1135. In the course of doing so, the Tribunal held that: (1) both grounds of objection were supported by evidence; and (2) for each ground, Mr Mehajer failed to establish that he had a reasonable excuse for the failure on his part which constituted that ground.

Consideration 166 The effect of s 149 of the Act in the present case was to provide, subject to the operation of s 149A of that Act, an automatic discharge of Mr Mehajer's bankruptcy from on or about 3 May 2021. 167 Section 149A of the Act provided for an extension of the period of bankruptcy where an objection to the discharge of the bankrupt had taken effect in accordance with s 149G of the Act (i.e. from the beginning of the day on which details of the notice of objection are entered into the National Personal Insolvency Index). 168 Section 149D of the Act provided various grounds of objection available to a trustee including, relevantly, where: "the bankrupt, when requested in writing by the trustee to provide written information about the bankrupt's property, income or expected income, failed to comply with the request" (s 149D(1)(d)); and "the bankrupt failed to pay to the trustee an amount that the bankrupt was liable to pay under s 139ZG" (s 149D(1)(f)). 169 The effect of s 139ZG(1) of the Act in the present case was to provide that (subject to sub-section 139ZI(3)) the contribution that Mr Mehajer was liable to pay was payable at such times and in such instalments as the trustee determined. 170 Section 139ZG(2) provided, in effect, that Mr Mehajer's liability to pay the contribution was unaffected by: (1) the making of an application by Mr Mehajer to the trustee under sub-section 139T(1); (2) the making by Mr Mehajer of a request to the Inspector-General for a review of the decision of the trustee to make the assessment that gave rise to the liability; or (3) the making of an application to the Tribunal for review of the decision of the Inspector-General. 171 Mr Mehajer's over-arching submission was that the trustee acted with a "sinister motive". More specifically, Mr Mehajer submitted that: (1) as to s 149D(1)(d) - Mr Mehajer's failure to provide requested information - the trustee acted prematurely and inappropriately in making the objection in circumstances when Mr Mehajer had requested a short extension of time where he was not feeling well. Mr Mehajer also submitted that the lodging of a notice of objection should be an option exercised by a trustee only as a matter of last resort; and (2) as to s 149D(1)(f) - Mr Mehajer's failure to pay amounts due under s 139ZG of the Bankruptcy Act - the amounts were not due and payable and he had requested a review by the Inspector-General. Mr Mehajer did not dispute that he had failed to pay the contributions required by the trustee's letter dated 28 July 2020. 172 I do not regard the trustee's conduct in filing the Notice of Objection to be conduct warranting an inquiry, for the following reasons. 173 First, it was open to the trustee to lodge the Notice of Objection based on s 149D(1)(d) of the Act, by dint of the failure of Mr Mehajer to provide the information required within the time frame provided. The trustee's correspondence of 22 July 2020 and 30 September 2020 was pellucid as to what Mr Mehajer was required to do and the time frame in which he was to do it. Mr Mehajer did not comply with the initial time frame (23 October 2020) or the extended time frame (6 November 2020), noting again that the period of extension provided by the trustee was twice that sought by Mr Mehajer. The trustee had a discretion to provide a further period for a response and it was well open to him to refuse to do so. 174 Secondly, it was open to the trustee to file the Notice of Objection based on s 149D(1)(d) of the Act, by dint of Mr Mehajer's failure to pay the amounts due under s 139ZG of the Act. Mr Mehajer's contention that those amounts were not due and payable is contrary to s 139ZG of the Act. 175 Thirdly, the Notice of Objection has been the subject of review by the Tribunal, which found that both grounds were supported by evidence. 176 Thus, no inquiry is warranted. Further, there is simply no basis for Mr Mehajer's submission that the trustee was actuated by a "sinister motive".

O. Conclusion and costs 177 For the reasons set out above, none of the grounds give rise to any matter which warrants an investigation into the trustee's conduct. It follows that the application should be dismissed. Costs should follow the event. 178 The trustee seeks an order that costs be fixed on a lump-sum basis. Mr Mehajer did not address this issue. For the following reasons, an order that the trustee's costs be paid on a lump-sum basis, with the quantum of such costs to be determined by a Registrar of this Court, is appropriate. 179 First, the exercise of the Court's discretion to award costs is informed by the Court's Costs Practice Note (GPN-COSTS), which records at [4.1] the Court's preference for the making of lump-sum costs orders wherever it is practicable and appropriate to do so: see Paciocco v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd (No 2) [2017] FCAFC 146; (2017) 253 FCR 403 at 406 to 407 ([16] to [20]) (Allsop CJ, Besanko and Middleton JJ); Coshott v Prentice (No 2) [2018] FCAFC 221 (Kerr, Farrell and Gleeson JJ) at [4]. There is no impediment to that occurring in the present case. Secondly, the making of a lump-sum costs order is likely to be more efficient than a taxation process. Finally, Registrars of this Court are well-placed to determine the sum of a lump-sum costs award because of their regular work in that area. 180 I will make orders accordingly. I certify that the preceding one hundred and eighty (180) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Justice Goodman.