//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2024] FCA 493
Federal Court of Australia
2024-05-13
Perry J
Original judgment source is linked above.
4.1 Approach to evidence: general principles 43 First, it was not in issue that the onus lay upon Mr Mokhtar to establish grounds for removing the Trustee. 44 Secondly, in approaching my assessment of the evidence I have borne firmly in mind the seriousness of the allegations by the Trustee against Mr Mokhtar, including that he has deliberately concealed assets, destroyed documents, and realised assets without the Trustee's knowledge or authority. In this regard, in arriving at a state of satisfaction in civil proceedings that a case has been proved on the balance of probabilities, s 140(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) provides that: Without limiting the matters that the court may take into account in deciding whether it is so satisfied, it is to take into account: (a) the nature of the cause of action or defence; and (b) the nature of the subject-matter of the proceeding; and (c) the gravity of the matters alleged. (Emphasis added.) 45 The considerations to which consideration must be given pursuant to s 140(2) of the Evidence Act align with Dixon J's observations in Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 of how the civil standard of proof at common law operates: see, eg, Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2007] FCAFC 132; (2007) 162 FCR 466 at [31] (Weinberg, Bennet and Rares JJ). Thus, in an oft-quoted passage at 362 from Briginshaw, Dixon J explained that: reasonable satisfaction is not a state of mind that is attained or established independently of the nature and consequence of the fact or facts to be proved. The seriousness of an allegation made, the inherent unlikelihood of an occurrence of a given description, or the gravity of the consequences flowing from a particular finding are considerations which must affect the answer to the question whether the issue has been proved to the reasonable satisfaction of the tribunal. In such matters "reasonable satisfaction" should not be produced by inexact proofs, indefinite testimony, or indirect inferences. Everyone must feel that, when, for instance, the issue is on which of two dates an admitted occurrence took place, a satisfactory conclusion may be reached on materials of a kind that would not satisfy any sound and prudent judgment if the question was whether some act had been done involving grave moral delinquency. 46 In other words, as explained by Barwick CJ, Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ, the "degree of satisfaction for which the civil standard of proof calls may vary according to the gravity of the fact to be proved": Rejfek v McElroy [1965] HCA 46; (1965) 112 CLR 517 at 521. This principle, as Flick and Perry JJ observed in Sullivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCAFC 93; (2014) 226 FCR 555 at [99], "is ultimately founded upon principles of fairness and common sense". 47 Thirdly, the matters set out in s 140(2) are mandatory but not exhaustive. As Lee J set out in Lehrmann v Network Ten Pty Limited (Trial Judgment) [2024] FCA 369 at [97]: Other considerations which may be relevant include the inherent likelihood of the occurrence of the fact alleged and the notion that all evidence is to be weighed according to the proof which it was in the power of one side to have produced, and the other to have contradicted: Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63 (at 65 per Lord Mansfield). 48 Fourthly, both the applicant and the Trustee ask the Court to draw certain inferences, including in the case of the applicant as to the Trustee's purpose in issuing multiple objection notices after Mr Mokhtar made a complaint to the Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA) regarding the Trustee's letter of 3 May 2021 (the 3 May letter). As to inferential reasoning, Lee J in Quintis Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy Number B0507N16FA15350 [2021] FCA 19; 385 ALR 639 at [105]-[106] said the following: However, it is also true that where there is no direct evidence of a fact that a party bearing the onus of proof seeks to prove, "it is not possible to attain entire satisfaction as to the true state of affairs": Girlock (Sales) Pty Ltd v Hurrell (1982) 149 CLR 155 (at 169 per Mason J). However, in such a case, the law does not require proof to the "entire satisfaction" of the tribunal of fact: see Transport Industries Insurance Co Ltd v Longmuir [1997] 1 VR 125 (at 141 per Tadgell JA, with whom Winneke P and Phillips JA agreed). Indeed, a party may advance a case relying on circumstantial evidence, on the basis that collectively viewed, a combination of proven facts can provide a sufficient basis for inferring the ultimate fact to be proved. A comprehensive statement as to the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in a civil case to support proof by inference from directly proved facts was given by the High Court in Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1 (at 5 per Dixon, Williams, Webb, Fullagar and Kitto JJ): Of course as far as logical consistency goes many hypotheses may be put which the evidence does not exclude positively. But this is a civil and not a criminal case. We are concerned with probabilities, not with possibilities. The difference between the criminal standard of proof in its application to circumstantial evidence and the civil is that in the former the facts must be such as to exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence, while in the latter you need only circumstances raising a more probable inference in favour of what is alleged. In questions of this sort, where direct proof is not available, it is enough if the circumstances appearing in evidence give rise to a reasonable and definite inference: they must do more than give rise to conflicting inferences of equal degrees of probability so that the choice between them is mere matter of conjecture. But if circumstances are proved in which it is reasonable to find a balance of probabilities in favour of the conclusion sought then, though the conclusion may fall short of certainty, it is not to be regarded as a mere conjecture or surmise … (Citations omitted). Furthermore, in assessing a circumstantial case, the question of whether an inference is open and can be drawn as a matter of probability is to be determined by considering the combined weight of all the relevant established facts, rather than by considering each fact sequentially and in isolation: Marriner v Australian Super Developments Pty Ltd [2016] VSCA 141 (at [75] per Tate ACJ, Kyrou and Ferguson JJA). Indeed, as the Full Court of this Court recently stated in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Chau Chak Wing [2019] FCAFC 125; (2019) 271 FCR 632 (at 674 [134] per Besanko, Bromwich and Wheelahan JJ): In assessing a circumstantial case, it is important to bear in mind that the facts ultimately to be proven are those that are in issue, and not necessarily all the circumstantial facts themselves. As Dawson J observed in Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 at 580, "[T]he probative force of a mass of evidence may be cumulative, making it pointless to consider the degree of probability of each item of evidence separately." This invites consideration of the combined weight of circumstantial facts, for it is the essence of a circumstantial case that the combined force of its components should be considered, and proof of some circumstantial facts may be affected by the court's assessment of other circumstantial facts: Chamberlain v The Queen (No 2) (1984) 153 CLR 521 at 535 (Gibbs CJ and Mason J). Courts may fall into error by compartmentalising circumstantial facts, rather than standing back and assessing the broader picture. 49 In the fifth place, with respect to the assessment of affidavit and oral evidence and the impact of the passage of time on the quality of evidence, Black J in In Re Kit Digital Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] NSWSC 1547 explained (at [7]) that: It is important in this context to have regard to the fallibility of human memory which increases with the passage of time, particularly where disputes or litigation intervene: Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 at 318-319 per McLelland CJ in Eq; Hoy Mobile Pty Ltd v Allphones Retail Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 810 at [41] per Rares J; Varma v Varma [2010] NSWSC 786 at [424]-[425] per Ward J. To the extent that credit issues need to be determined in respect of particular conversations, I have also had regard to the fact that objective evidence is likely to be the most reliable basis for determining them. I summarised the relevant principles in Re Colorado Products Pty Ltd (in prov liq) [2014] NSWSC 789 at [10], where I noted that the credibility of a witness and his or her veracity may be tested by reference to the objective facts proved independently of the testimony given, in particular by reference to the documents in the case, by paying particular regard to the witness's motives and the overall probabilities: Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA [1985] 1 Ll R 1 at 57; Camden v McKenzie [2007] QCA 136; [2008] 1 Qd R 39 at [34]; Craig v Silverbrook [2013] NSWSC 1687 at [141]; State of New South Wales v Hunt [2014] NSWCA 47 at [56]." 50 These principles were recently approved, for example, by Markovic J in Scott (Trustee), Stolyar (Bankrupt) v Stolyar [2022] FCA 691 at [22]. 51 McLelland CJ in Equity, speaking of the fallibility of human memory in Watson v Foxman and Others (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 at 319, pointedly explained influences that may impact upon the processes of memory with the passing of time: …human memory of what was said in a conversation is fallible for a variety of reasons, and ordinarily the degree of fallibility increases with the passage of time, particularly where disputes or litigation intervene, and the processes of memory are overlaid, often subconsciously, by perceptions or self-interest as well as conscious consideration of what should have been said or could have been said. All too often what is actually remembered is little more than an impression from which plausible details are then, again often subconsciously, constructed. All this is a matter of ordinary human experience. 52 Similarly, Katzmann J explained in Arnautovic & Sutherland t/as Jirsch Sutherland & Co v Cvitznovic (as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Adrian Lawrence Rosee) [2011] FCA 809 at [73] that: In the absence of notes it is, generally speaking, impossible to accurately recall the terms of any conversation six months after it took place. Human memory is notoriously unreliable. As Spigelman CJ recently observed ("Truth and the Law", The 2011 Sir Maurice Byers Lecture, 26 May 2011): Witnesses can, without any dissimulation or propensity to lie, confidently assert the truth of conversations, observations and events which did not happen. The plasticity of memory impedes the truth finding process. This is not an uncommon phenomenon…
4.2 Mr Mokhtar's evidence and findings as to credit 53 Subject to rulings and concessions on objections to evidence, the applicant read the following affidavits: (1) Paragraphs 1, 5, 7, 29, 30, 33, 34 and 36 of Mr Mokhtar's affidavit, affirmed on 26 July 2022 (and filed on 8 August 2022); (2) Mr Mokhtar's affidavit, affirmed on 9 December 2022; (3) Mr Mokhtar's affidavit, affirmed on 17 March 2023; and (4) Mr Mokhtar's affidavit, affirmed on 17 July 2023 (Fourth Mokhtar affidavit). 54 Mr Mokhtar was also cross-examined extensively by the Trustee. The Trustee submitted that the Court ought to find that Mr Mokhtar was an unsatisfactory witness, who was interested only in advancing his own interests. For instance, during cross-examination, Mr Mokhtar gave evidence that during the past five years, he had misunderstood various aspects of the administration of the bankruptcy, that aspects had been misrepresented to him and that sometimes he recalled things well but sometimes he did not. The Trustee submitted that those statements were deliberately inaccurate, and that this was not merely a case of a bankrupt who was acting under misunderstandings. Rather, the Trustee contended that Mr Mokhtar's conduct in the course of the bankruptcy and in giving evidence was characterised by obfuscation. 55 In respect of Mr Mokhtar's evidence, I have reached the following general conclusions. 56 First, I agree that Mr Mokhtar was an unsatisfactory witness. I found his evidence generally to be evasive. He consistently sought to place the blame on others - in particular, his financial adviser, Mr Humphries, and the Trustee - and he consistently sought to avoid accepting responsibility for his own conduct. 57 I also accept to some extent Mr Mokhtar's evidence that he has difficulty in recalling aspects of what occurred over the bankruptcy. Mr Mokhtar gave evidence that he has been very stressed and feeling depressed over his bankruptcy. He also told the Court of his problems with gambling and alcohol, the collapse of his marriage, and his financial difficulties. Mr Mokhtar was cross-examined on whether he had a diagnosed mental health condition which contributed to his inability to recall information. While no expert evidence was called, or medical report tendered, I accept Mr Mokhtar's evidence that at some point in time he was diagnosed with depression by a psychiatrist and/or a psychologist because he was able to volunteer the medicine prescribed to him, the dosage, and the location of the psychiatrist and psychologist who he had consulted. However, he did not give evidence otherwise as to when he met with mental health professional or was diagnosed or as to the impact of his mental health issues on his ability to recall matters. In any event, it is patently clear Mr Mokhtar was under significant stress in the leadup to his bankruptcy and remains so. 58 Nonetheless, in my view, Mr Mokhtar exaggerated his inability to recall events so to avoid taking responsibility for his actions. For example, Mr Mokhtar admitted in cross-examination that he was able to function in his employment as an audiometrist, working across two clinics, despite claiming that throughout the same period he had no memory of preparing or signing the debtor's petition. 59 In short, I find that Mr Mokhtar's evidence was unreliable and therefore generally ought not to be accepted absent corroborative evidence, admissions against interest, or where it is inherently plausible. 60 Secondly, certain aspects of Mr Mokhtar's evidence were corroborated by other evidence which I have accepted. For example, the respondent in cross-examining Mr Mokhtar, was particularly critical of Mr Mokhtar's purported concealment of information about his assets and liabilities when preparing the debtor's petition. Mr Mokhtar denied the claim and gave evidence that he disclosed his relevant assets to Mr Humphries, his financial adviser. This evidence was subsequently corroborated to some extent by an apparently contemporaneous financial statement prepared by Mr Humphries (discussed further below). However, the evidence also indicates that there were significant assets and dealings in assets both before and during the bankruptcy by Mr Mokhtar which he did not disclose to his financial adviser or to the Trustee.
4.3 Trustee's evidence 61 The Trustee relied on three affidavits sworn by the Trustee, namely the first and second affidavits sworn on 20 February 2023 (First Trustee Affidavit and Second Trustee Affidavit) together with their exhibit R5, and the Trustee's affidavit sworn on 21 March 2023 (Third Trustee Affidavit), together with exhibit R6 thereto. These were received subject to those paragraphs not read, received for a limited purpose, or received only as submissions, in accordance with concessions by the Trustee and my rulings on objections. In addition, the Trustee filed, among other affidavits, an affidavit sworn on 19 September 2023 which Mr Mokhtar tendered into evidence (Fourth Trustee Affidavit). 62 In the body of the affidavits on which he relied, the Trustee included lengthy accounts of conversations that he had purportedly had with the applicant, to which the applicant objected. The accounts were said to be corroborated by independent file notes kept by the Trustee, which purported to record the conversations he had with Mr Mokhtar. The Trustee did not keep individual electronic file notes but a single electronic word document. That document included a mix of non-privileged material and material apparently subject to legal professional privilege. With respect, this is a highly unsatisfactory practice as I observed at the hearing and the Trustee's counsel accepted. It was also impossible to determine from the single electronic file when individual entries were made and therefore whether the notes of conversations were contemporaneous. 63 At trial, the applicant's objections to the alleged conversations and file notes were resolved on the basis that the parties would make submissions as to the weight I could ascribe that evidence. The applicant submitted that no weight could be given to the account of the conversations contained in the body of the Trustee's affidavits. This was because they were reconstructions of events made well after the purported conversations took place, and were often not corroborated by, and at times were inconsistent with, the typed file notes kept by the Trustee. I agree that the word-for-word accounts of conversations in the body of the affidavits cannot generally be given any weight save where, for example, they are corroborated by other evidence for the following reasons. I had a particular concern that the alleged verbatim accounts frequently contained what appear on their face to be self-serving statements by the Trustee which, as I explain below, did not generally find support in the attached file notes. 64 First, the Trustee set out critical conversations between him and the applicant in the body of his affidavits in direct speech, notwithstanding the length of time elapsing between those conversations and swearing of his affidavits. Not only is it inherently unlikely that the Trustee recalled the precise words used in those conversations, but the Trustee's evidence in cross-examination was to the effect that the conversations were put into direct speech by the Trustee's solicitor based on the Trustee's file notes in preparing the first draft of his first affidavit. 65 Where the deponent remembers only the substance or gist of what was said, the conversation should not be set out in direct speech (or in quotation marks) as that gives the misleading impression that the deponent recalls the actual words of the conversation. As Jackman J held in Kane's Hire Pty Ltd v Anderson Aviation Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 381 at [123]-[128]): There is ample authority for the proposition that there is no rule of the law of evidence in Australia that evidence of conversations must be given in direct speech… Evidence should be given in direct speech only if the witness can remember the actual words used… The passage [from the judgment of McLelland CJ in Eq in Watson v Foxman (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 at 318-319 quoted above] is characteristically pithy and insightful. … The statement towards the end of the quoted passage, as to what is actually remembered being little more than an impression from which plausible details are then constructed, is particularly pertinent to the present issue, although many would find his Honour's reference to that often occurring "subconsciously" to be overly charitable. The primary duty of a witness is one of honesty. The oath or affirmation binds the witness to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Witnesses should not be compelled or encouraged into uttering untruths on oath by giving a form of words in direct speech with which they are not happy and which they cannot actually recollect in preference to their own words in indirect speech… The practice of witnesses and lawyers working up a version of a conversation in direct speech (whether or not prefaced by the phrase "in words to the following effect") from the witness's actual memory merely of the substance or gist of what was said is logically, ethically and grammatically wrong. It is logically wrong because it reverses the logical process of deriving the meaning or substance of what was said from the actual words which were spoken; one cannot derive (as distinct from guess at) the actual words spoken simply from their gist. It is ethically wrong because the evidence given as a result of that process conceals the true nature and quality of the witness's memory, and conveys a false impression of that memory. It is grammatically wrong because the use of quotation marks indicates as a matter of conventional usage that the relevant expression is a quotation of the exact words which were spoken. It could not be said that this practice is allied to an iron sense of principle. The form in which evidence of conversations is given should reflect the difference between verbatim memory and gist memory. … It would appear that verbatim memory and gist memory of conversations are not merely different in degree, but are also different in kind… (Citations omitted.) This passage was recently approved by the NSW Court of Appeal in Gan v Xie [2023] NSWCA 163 at [119] (White JA (Simpson AJA at [126] and Basten AJA at [127] agreeing)). 66 Secondly, certain conversations reproduced in the body of the Trustee's affidavits were said to have been based on his file notes. However, the Trustee did not give evidence sufficient to establish that the reliability of the file notes, such as how the file notes were prepared, in what form, at what time, and whether he had adopted a general practice in relation to their preparation. This is particularly the case with respect to those notes contained in the single electronic document in which the Trustee apparently kept a running record of the administration of the bankruptcy. 67 Furthermore, as submitted by the applicant, in some cases, the conversation as related in the body of his affidavit was inconsistent with the file note, including containing significant additional information. In this regard, apparently the wrong file note was attached to the Trustee's affidavit in support of the description given by him in the body of his affidavit of a telephone conversation with the applicant on 28 March 2018. However, that was not the only case where the file note attached to the affidavit did not support the description of the conversation as relayed in the body of the affidavit. 68 For example, at [10] of his affidavit sworn on 20 February 2023, the Trustee stated that: On 15 January 2018 I received a telephone call from Mr Mokhtar. We had a conversation to the following effect: He said: My name is Ahmad Mokhtar. Alex Humphries gave me your number. I would like to ask you some questions about bankruptcy which I am thinking about. I said: Sure. He said: I went through a divorce and all I have left is a half interest in a property in St Clair where I live. I refinanced it since the divorce. I received $122,000 from my ex-wife when we settled. I said: What happened to the money you had? He said: I gave some money to my ex-brother-in-law and to other family members. Anyway, Alex said to talk to you about purchasing that interest in the property back from the bankrupt estate once I become a bankrupt. I said: If I become the trustee, I will have to get a number of market appraisals to determine the amount of equity first of all. In the meantime, you can get your own market appraisals. Who is the other owner? He said: My cousin. I said: An arrangement to purchase the bankrupt estate's interest is possible where there is only limited equity in the property. However, it will become yours only after both you have paid in full with interest and are discharged. I want to stress that you have to be discharged before the interest becomes yours as that is the law due to a certain court decision. That is also the position of AFSA my regulator. Do you understand? He said: Yes. I said: I also want to stress that you must pay. While I will be patient to a point, I will pull the plug at some point in time if you don't pay. You don't want to end up like a particular bankrupt woman who had to pay only $5,500. She paid only $500 when I had no choice but to pull the plug as I have duties to the bankrupt estate. Her husband then had to find $165,000 from his super to save the house from sale. Extreme case but do you understand? He said: Yes. Alex said that I will have to pay income contributions on my income which is going to be about $140,000. I said: That is right. How much you pay depends on the number of dependants and how much child support you pay. It is in your interest to pay as otherwise you can get your bankruptcy extended. It is one of the two most common reasons why bankrupts get their bankruptcy extended. You would then have even more income contributions to pay. Something to be avoided at all cost. He said: Understood. I said: Tell me more about what happened to your money. He said: When my marriage broke up I was depressed. I gave some money to creditors. The rest I spent or gambled. I also lost the money from shares I sold. I even drew money from my super. I said: How did you pay your creditors? He said: A lot of it was in cash. A copy of my file note of this telephone conversation is at page 2 of Exhibit SP-2. (Emphasis omitted.) 69 However, the handwritten file note of this telephone conversation at page 2 of the exhibit simply states: Mokhtar 15/1/18 Tel. - Property - home ® refinance - $122K - gave brother in law $65K?. - [indecipherable word] - preference? - St Clair - [indecipherable word] - get [indecipherable word] appraisal - other owner ® [indecipherable word] - arrangement? If limited equity - pay + discharge - [four indecipherable words] - spent money - depressed - marriage break up - gambled shares - drew money out of super - cus ® cash? 70 While there was no evidence as to how and when the note was made, it can reasonably be inferred from the nature of the note that it was contemporaneous. Nonetheless, the note lends no support to the detailed telephone conversation set out in the Trustee's affidavit. To the contrary, it strongly suggests that the conversation as described in the body of the affidavit is a complete reconstruction. 71 Having regard to these concerns, I do not consider that the evidence in the body of the Trustee's affidavit in direct speech of the alleged content of conversations can be relied upon absent corroborative evidence or admissions by Mr Mokhtar. The Trustee was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inconsistencies between the content of conversations as set out in the body of his affidavits, on the one hand, and his file notes, on the other hand. In addition, in two affidavits (First Trustee Affidavit and Fourth Trustee Affidavit), the Trustee deposed to words spoken at a meeting with Mr Mokhtar on 20 March 2021. Yet the accounts of the conversation, both of which were given in direct speech, differed between the two affidavits without any explanation for the differences. 72 Furthermore, the extent to which the Trustee's affidavits were drafted by his solicitors, as opposed to setting out his actual recollection of events in his own words, remains unclear. This is despite the Trustee's evidence that he amended his first affidavit (First Trustee Affidavit) to accord with his recollection and "I think I had a much more direct hand" in drafting "the other affidavit" (which I take to be a reference to the Third Trustee Affidavit). As such his affidavit evidence was generally unsatisfactory. 73 Nonetheless, I found the Trustee's evidence in cross-examination generally to be persuasive, notwithstanding that he was prone to discursive answers and was at times defensive. The latter was illustrated by the frequency with which he would answer questions about his conduct or recollection of matters by diverting the answer to Mr Mokhtar's behaviour, which he clearly viewed extremely poorly and was very upset about. In particular, I largely accept the gist of his oral evidence as to matters conveyed in certain significant conversations including, notably, the conversation at the Top Ryde Shopping Centre.
4.4 Was there a failure to comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn with respect to the failure to cross-examine the Trustee on certain topics? 74 The respondent objected to the applicant's submissions regarding the 17 Objection Notices on the basis the Trustee had not been cross-examined on the issue in breach of the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) R 67. It was submitted that as a result, the Trustee was not afforded the opportunity to respond to the proposition that he acted improperly in issuing the Objection Notices from bankruptcy over an 11-month period. 75 The rule in Browne v Dunn is an aspect of the requirements of procedural fairness, namely, that there is an obligation on a party cross-examining a witness to give the witness an opportunity to explain when it is proposed that the witness' evidence, in whole or in part, should not be believed. However, it is not necessary to afford the witness that opportunity in cross-examination where clear notice has already been given of the cross-examiner's intention to rely on such matters. 76 In West v Mead [2003] NSWSC 161 at [95]-[99], Campbell J helpfully analysed the authorities and relevant principles as follows: In Browne v Dunn at 70-71 Lord Herschell LC stated an obligation of procedural fairness which counsel has when cross-examining a witness who counsel intends to submit should not be accepted: "If you intend to impeach a witness you are bound, whilst he is in the box, to give him an opportunity to make any explanation which is open to him; and, as it seems to me, that is not only a rule of professional practice in the conduct of a case, but is essential to fair play and fair dealing with witnesses." However, Lord Herschell LC said that there was no obligation to raise such a matter in cross-examination where it is: "… perfectly clear that [the witness] has had full notice beforehand that there is an intention to impeach the credibility of the story which he is telling … All I am saying is that it will not do to impeach the credibility of a witness upon a matter on which he has not had any opportunity of giving an explanation by reason of there having been no suggestion whatever in the course of the case that his story is not accepted." In Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1983] 1 NSWLR 1 Hunt J made a thorough review of later cases applying Browne v Dunn, and concluded (at 26): "I remain of the opinion that, unless notice has already clearly been given of the cross-examiner's intention to rely upon such matters, it is necessary to put to an opponent's witness in cross-examination the nature of the case upon which it is proposed to rely in contradiction of his evidence, particularly where that case relies upon inferences to be drawn from other evidence in the proceedings." In the present case, the serving of Ms West's affidavit in chief gave notice to Ms Mead and her advisers that Ms West proposed to rely upon the matters contained in paragraph 181. Ms Mead took the opportunity, in her own affidavit in response, specifically to reply to that allegation. Documents exchanged between the parties to litigation before the commencement of the trial are able to give notice that a witness's account of events will be challenged in particular ways, so that there is no breach of Browne v Dunn if the witness' account is not challenged in cross-examination. - Marelic v Comcare (1993) 121 ALR 114 at 120 (pre trial exchange of medical reports gives adequate notice), Flower & Hart v White Industries (QLD) Pty Ltd (1999) 163 ALR 744 at [52] (statement of issues, stated case and service of documentary evidence can give adequate notice), Stern v National Australia Bank Limited (2000) 171 ALR 192 at [44] (adequate notice given by pleadings), Seymour v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1977) 19 NSWLR 219 at 236 per Mahoney JA (adequate notice given by "the nature of the defendant's case and the particulars given, and otherwise the conduct of it"), In the Marriage of L C & T C (1998) 23 FamLR 75 at [39] (affidavits give adequate notice). Cross On Evidence, 6th Australian edition, paragraph [17460] footnote 12 says: "… the rule in Browne v Dunn did not apply where all parties were on notice of the evidentiary issues, eg by reason of affidavits having been exchanged …" The consequence of these decisions is that the circumstances in which Browne v Dunn will require matter to be put to a witness in cross-examination will depend upon the nature of the pre-trial preparation there has been, and whether that pre-trial preparation has been sufficient to give notice to a witness of the submission ultimately intended to be put to the court. An aspect of this is that Browne v Dunn will require more extensive cross-examination in a case where all the evidence is given orally, than is necessary in a case where the substance of the evidence proposed to be given by each side is notified in advance by affidavit or statement. Even when there has been an exchange of affidavits or statements, the rule in Browne v Dunn will require a cross-examining counsel to put to a witness the implications which counsel proposes to submit can be drawn from the evidence, if those implications are not obvious from the evidence, or from other pre-trial procedures, or the course of the case. However, the submission which Ms Bateman seeks to put on the basis of paragraph 181 of Ms West's affidavit in chief involves no drawing together of strands of evidence to create some overall theory or inference of fact, but is a submission as to the legal consequence that should be drawn from the facts plainly asserted in paragraph 181. Nothing in the rule in Browne v Dunn prevents her from putting that submission. (Emphasis added.) 77 Applying these principles to the present case, the Trustee was given clear notice that Mr Mokhtar alleged that he had acted improperly in issuing the 17 Objection Notices over an 11-month period. The applicant's Concise Statement dated 23 December 2022 at [38] alleged that "the volume and frequency of the objection notices, as well as the timing of them in the life of the bankruptcy, gives rise to a legitimate concern that the notices have not been issued sensibly, and rather have been issued for vindictive purposes rather than to advance legitimate interests of the bankrupt estate." 78 In his Concise Response dated 23 February 2023, the Trustee denied the allegations and alleged at [34]-[35] that: The Trustee has a statutory duty to file a notice of objection to discharge whenever a bankrupt is not discharging his statutory duties. The fact that multiple notices of objection were issued in Mr Mokhtar's case is no reason to infer that they were filed for "vindicative purposes" or to punish Mr Mokhtar. Mr Mokhtar bears the burden of proving a case for the removal of the Trustee as mere dissatisfaction with a decision, or actions of the Trustee or mere assertions of partiality, no matter how stridently put, are not enough to justify removal. 79 In his reply, Mr Mokhtar relevantly joined issue with these contentions. 80 The allegation regarding the volume and frequency of the objection notices also formed part of the applicant's written submissions in chief dated 14 June 2023. The Trustee further defended the filing of the objection notices in his written submissions (RS), especially at [28]-[35]. The Trustee, among other things, submitted that it was not unusual for a trustee to lodge an objection to discharge just before the bankrupt is due to be discharged. The Trustee submitted that the purpose of the objection procedure was to require the bankrupt to comply with various of his duties in circumstances where he had failed to do so. The Trustee "noted that AFSA, as the supervisory body, would have taken steps to set the objections aside had it taken the view that they were without foundation and should not have been made in that number" (RS, [34]). 81 In these circumstances, it is perfectly clear that the Trustee had full notice in advance of the trial of the applicant's allegations concerning the number and timing of the notices of objection to discharge from bankruptcy, and the adverse inferences which he asked the Court to draw as to the Trustee's purpose. There was no breach of the rule in Browne v Dunn in the failure by the applicant to cross-examine the Trustee as to his purposes in issuing the objections.
5.1 Pre-bankruptcy transfer of the Strauss Road Property 82 Mr Mokhtar married his former spouse on 20 December 2011. They subsequently separated and signed a Separation Agreement on 1 July 2017. The Separation Agreement (which only came to light late in June 2022, following investigations by the Trustee) contained the following schedule: Schedule A Ahmad Shaib Mokhtar Ahmad Shaib Mokhtar will be entitled to the following property free of any claims by [Mr Mokhtar's former spouse]. Item Description Estimated Value 1 Household Furniture $40,000.00 AUD 2 Motor Vehicle $20,000.00 AUD 3 Superannuation $30,000.00 AUD 4 18 Strauss Road St Clair NSW 2759 $790,000.00 AUD
83 The Separation Agreement therefore provided Mr Mokhtar, among other things, with full entitlement to the property at 18 Strauss Road, St Clair (the Strauss Road property). 84 On 30 October 2017, Mr Mokhtar's former spouse's 50% interest in the Strauss Road property was transferred instead to Mr Mokhtar's cousin, Nabil Mokhtar. Mr Mokhtar gave evidence that he sold 50% of the interest in the property to Nabil because he "could not service the loan" on the Strauss Road property alone. The Trustee, in turn, alleges that Mr Mokhtar "either failed to disclose, or concealed, that Mr Nabil Mokhtar should not have been on title according to the property settlement between Mr Mokhtar and his wife and how Nabil came to be on the title remains unexplained": RS, [11]. 85 The Trustee further alleges that Mr Mokhtar provided the half-interest in the Strauss Road property to Nabil without consideration. The transfer document dated 30 October 2017 discloses that Mr Mokhtar and his former spouse transferred 50% ownership in the property to Nabil for consideration of $1.00. Likewise, a document containing correspondence from Mr Mokhtar's former spouse disclosed that Mr Mokhtar had told her "that our joint share in the Strauss Road property was to be transferred to himself and Nabil Mokhtar as joint tenants". A later document, sent on 21 July 2022 by Mr Nicholas Seyfarth (Mr N Seyfarth), writing under the direction of Mr Mokhtar as a "lay representative", further affirms that "Mr Nabil Mokhtar did not pay monies to acquire Ms Mokhtar's interest in the Strauss Road property". 86 Mr N Seyfarth was a postgraduate student, residing in London. In December 2021, he was contacted by Mr Edward Seyfarth (Mr E Seyfarth), asking if he could assist Mr Mokhtar with his communications regarding his bankruptcy. Mr E Seyfarth was a longstanding friend and neighbour of Mr Humphries. Mr E Seyfarth appears to have attended a meeting, or meetings, between Mr Humphries and Mr Mokhtar at the time the debtors petition was being prepared in January 2018. In addition, Mr E Seyfarth assisted Mr Mokhtar in seeking review of various notices of objection to discharge to bankruptcy and in these proceedings, prior to Mr Mokhtar obtaining pro bono legal representation. 87 For completeness, the transfer document between Mr Mokhtar, his former spouse and Nabil, dated 30 October 2017, was witnessed by Ms Madeleine Seyfarth. In correspondence with Mr Humphries, dated 7 August 2022, the Trustee said he presumed Ms Madeleine Seyfarth was Mr E Seyfarth's wife and questioned their involvement with Mr Mokhtar prior to the bankruptcy. Mr Humphries did not confirm who Ms Seyfarth was and said he did not know anything about the Seyfarths' dealings with Mr Mokhtar prior to the bankruptcy. 88 These documents only came to light late into the administration of the bankruptcy as a result of the Trustee's investigations. As I explain shortly, one of the major contributing factors to the deterioration in the relationship between Mr Mokhtar and the Trustee was Mr Mokhtar's lack of assistance to the Trustee in providing information about the property transfer to Nabil and the separation agreement. Mr Mokhtar's failure to provide adequate responses to the Trustee's inquiries resulted in the Trustee issuing notices to Mr Mokhtar's former spouse in May 2022 under s 77A of the Bankruptcy Act for production of documents relating to a "private agreement". A copy of the draft separation agreement was produced to the Trustee by Ms Mokhtar under cover of a letter dated 26 June 2022. Subsequently, the Trustee was provided with a copy of the signed separation agreement by George Stewart Debt Solutions (where Mr Humphries used to work) following inquiries by the Trustee with the company on 18 July 2022.
5.2 The debtor's petition filed on 9 March 2018 and alleged concealment of assets (issue 1)
5.2.1 Events leading up to the bankruptcy 89 In late 2017, Mr Mokhtar became concerned that he was unable to manage his finances. As I have earlier found, the applicant was depressed following the breakdown of his marriage, and had serious problems with gambling, over-spending, and alcohol. I accept that these were the primary factors to which led to his financial difficulties. 90 In December 2017, Mr Mokhtar contacted Mr Alex Humphries of George Stewart Debt Solutions about his financial affairs. The Trustee was acquainted with Mr Humphries in his capacity as a "pre-insolvency advisor" and had dealt with him for approximately a decade. Mr Humphries recommended that Mr Mokhtar speak to the Trustee about declaring bankruptcy and gave him the Trustee's contact details. Mr Moktar first contacted the Trustee in January 2018. In his first report to creditors on 14 March 2018, the Trustee disclosed that he had spoken with Mr Mokhtar prior to his declaration of bankruptcy and described what was said in those conversations as follows: The number of meetings with the bankrupt or his advisers - none; however, on 15 January 2018 and 8 March 2018 I had a telephone conversation with Mr Mokhtar who stated that his marriage had broken down and as a result he received $122k from his ex-wife for his interest in the matrimonial home. Mr Mokhtar stated that he used that money to repay debts and otherwise he spent it freely. Mr Mokhtar stated that he also had a large parcel of Italian shares which he sold and together with money from his superannuation fund, he visited his family in Melbourne frequently and repaid debts, including family and credit cards debts, and further took to drinking heavily until the money ran out. Mr Mokhtar also stated he now lives in a property with his new partner which was purchased relatively recently and according to a bank valuation as at December 2017 there was limited equity in the property. Mr Mokhtar stated that he and his new partner wished to purchase the bankrupt estate's interest in the property. I stated that I would first investigate the equity in the property on appointment before making any decisions. However, I said that if there was in fact limited equity in the property it may be commercial to give the opportunity to purchase the equity in the property although if Mr Mokhtar as bankrupt was the purchaser, his interest would not revest until there was payment in full and discharge from bankruptcy. (Italics in original.) 91 I accept this as an accurate account of those conversations, given it is an essentially contemporaneous account of the conversations, transcribed well before any deterioration in the parties' relationship. It is also apparent from this evidence that the question of Mr Mokhtar purchasing the equity in the Strauss Road property was raised before he entered into bankruptcy and was considered then to be a possible option by the Trustee. 92 The Trustee also stated in the first report that neither he nor his firm had any relationship with the bankrupt or his family in the preceding two years and that he had not given any pre-appointment advice. I accept the truth of those statements. 93 I also accept that Mr Mokhtar may not remember exactly what he was told in meetings with his financial advisor and the Trustee about his obligations. However, I do not find it credible that Mr Mokhtar was not informed about, or did not understand, his basic obligations as a bankrupt. I find that Mr Mokhtar was advised by his financial advisor, Mr Humphries, about his obligations in entering into the bankruptcy, including, importantly, to disclose all of his assets and pre-bankruptcy dealings in property. Mr Humphries signed and dated a declaration in the completed statement of financial affairs that he "carefully read to/interpreted for the person named above [Mr Mokhtar] the prescribed information and the questions on this form…". Mr Mokhtar's obligations were also set out in the Debtor's Petition Prescribed Information, as part of Mr Mokhtar's debtor's petition. Mr Mokhtar signed an acknowledgement that he had received and read this information. 94 I also infer from the file note completed by Mr Humphries on 5 December 2017 at his meeting with Mr Mokhtar (Mr Humphries' file note), that Mr Humphries advised Mr Mokhtar at that time of his disclosure obligations. The file note records information disclosed by Mr Mokhtar about his assets, income, creditors and prior dealings in assets. I note that this file note was produced by George Stewart Debt Solutions in response to the Trustee's request (First Trustee Affidavit at [83]-[84]) and, in turn, by the Trustee to Mr Mokhtar in response to Mr Mokhtar's notice to produce (Fourth Mokhtar Affidavit at [9]-[11]). It is also likely that the Trustee informed Mr Mokhtar of his basic obligations as a bankrupt from the outset, including that he was required to disclose his assets, given that the record of conversation in the Trustee's first report to creditors indicates that the parties were proceeding (not surprisingly) on that assumption. Furthermore, Mr Mokhtar was reminded of those obligations on multiple occasions in subsequent correspondence from the Trustee.
5.2.2 The debtor's petition and statement of affairs 95 Mr Humphries prepared the debtor's petition and the accompanying statement of financial affairs. Mr Mokhtar signed the debtor's petition on 9 March 2018. This was lodged with the official trustee on Mr Mokhtar's behalf on 14 March 2018. The Trustee was appointed as official trustee of his estate on the same day. Mr Mokhtar has been a bankrupt since that date. 96 In his debtor's petition and statement of affairs, Mr Mokhtar gave his residential address as the Strauss Road property (as he had said in his pre-bankruptcy telephone conversations with the Trustee) and his occupation as audiometrist. However, in a letter dated 21 July 2022 from Mr N Seyfarth, writing under Mr Mokhtar's direction, to the Trustee, Mr Mokhtar advised that he had only lived at the Strauss Road property until February 2018, leaving due to depression and anxiety which were exacerbated by living alone after the breakup of his marriage. Thereafter, Mr Mokhtar said that he periodically stayed with various family members until November 2020 when he rented a property. One of the Trustee's complaints is that Mr Mokhtar failed to notify him of his change in residence pursuant to his statutory duty under s 80 of the Bankruptcy Act. 97 In his statement of affairs, Mr Mokhtar: (1) listed "[e]xcessive use of credit facilities including losses on repossessions, high interest payments and pressure selling" as the main cause of his bankruptcy (Q18A) and stated that he first had difficulty paying his debts in July 2015 (Q18C); (2) disclosed superannuation and life insurance policies totalling $16,699.70 (Q26); (3) disclosed that he had received a superannuation payout on 1 April 2016 in the amount of $115,000 (Q26); (4) disclosed bank savings totalling $62.70 (Q23) and $213 in cash (Q22); (5) did not disclose any ownership or interest in a vehicle (Q27); (6) disclosed ownership of the Strauss Road property and advised that $530,000 had been paid to acquire the property, its estimated resale value was $730,000, and that $671,000 was owed to creditors holding security over the property (Q28); (7) stated that he lived at the Strauss Road property and that it was not rented to tenants (Q28); (8) disclosed that Nabil Mokhtar was also an owner of the Strauss Road property and gave Nabil's address as the Strauss Road property (Q28); (9) disclosed the transfer of the former matrimonial home to his former spouse and the sale of shares on the Italian Stock Exchange in July 2017 for $156,000 (Q33); and (10) did not disclose any shares or any other assets or sources of income aside from his employment as an audiometrist. 98 In the section headed "Additional Notes", Mr Mokhtar stated with respect points (3) and (9) above: SOA Q26 - page 10: I was in a very difficult time with my marriage (six years) and was very depressed and my life reached a new low. I resorted to drinking and trying to escape from reality. I found myself spending money like it was going out of style and would escape down to Melbourne at every opportunity. This began to affect my work and most of all my family around me. With their help I managed to get myself back on track and regained my composure. The monies I received was spent on this low part of my life. SOA Q33 - page 12: [redacted] [the former matrimonial home] was jointly owned by my ex spouse and myself. She bought my half of the equity for $122,922.73. At the time we had a mortgage of $865,000.00. In return I was given her share of the [Strauss Road] property … . At the time the mortgage was $672,000.00. 99 Further, while Mr Mokhtar disclosed debts owing to a number of creditors including the ATO totalling $283,895.13, he did not disclose any debts to family members. The Trustee alleges that Mr Mokhtar had multiple other creditors such as family members who he did not disclose as creditors. 100 The statement of financial affairs also discloses that Mr Humphries assisted Mr Mokhtar in completing the form, and, as earlier mentioned, Mr Mokhtar signed the acknowledgement that he had received and read the prescribed information setting out options to deal with unmanageable debt and the consequences of proceeding with the petition for bankruptcy. The latter stated, among other things, that a bankrupt "cannot conceal, remove or dispose of any property inside or outside Australia" and advised that a bankrupt may be required to make contributions from their income. Mr Mokhtar also signed the declaration at the end of the form that the particulars set out in the statement were correct.
5.2.3 Did Mr Mokhtar conceal information about his assets and liabilities? 101 A central issue between the parties was the Trustee's allegation that Mr Mokhtar had deliberately concealed certain information about his assets and liabilities in his debtor's petition. It is important to bear in mind that this case is not an inquiry into the bankruptcy; nor is this a criminal prosecution (where the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt). Nonetheless the question of Mr Mokhtar's conduct in the course of the bankruptcy is relevant because the Trustee relies upon Mr Mokhtar's conduct in support of his submissions that: (1) the Trustee's conduct in issuing the 3 May letter and the Objection Notices was "diligent and aimed at carrying out his duties independently"; (2) the "degree of antagonism" arising between the Trustee and the bankrupt was a result of Mr Mokhtar's lack of cooperation; and (3) Mr Mokhtar "should not be allowed, through his own conduct, to attempt to generate and then rely upon a suggested reason for removal of Mr Piscopo." 102 Mr Mokhtar, however, gave evidence that he provided all relevant information to his financial advisor and the Trustee for the preparation of the debtor's petition and the statement of affairs. He gave further evidence that he did not read the documents before signing because he relied upon his financial adviser and the Trustee to have included all of the relevant information. 103 The Trustee alleged in the First Trustee Affidavit at [89]-[92] (being paragraphs which were not read but received only as submissions) that Mr Mokhtar failed to disclose the following matters in his statement of affairs: (1) he directed his [former spouse] to transfer her interest in the Strauss Road property to his cousin Mr Nabil Mokhtar without consideration which was contrary to the terms of the property settlement agreement [with his former spouse], something which should have been disclosed in answer to questions 33 to 35 of his statement of affairs…; (2) in the months before his bankruptcy, Mr Mokhtar refinanced the mortgage over the Strauss Road property and received $57,922.72 to dilute the equity in the property, something which should have been disclosed in answer to question 39 of his statement of affairs…; (3) …shortly before the bankruptcy Mr Mokhtar owned or disposed of his motor vehicle (valued at $20,000 in the separation agreement…) to his cousin Mr Nabil Mokhtar possibly for undervalue, something which should have been disclosed in answer to questions 33 to 35 of his statement of affairs…; (4) Mr Mokhtar owned employee stock options that vested in his bankrupt estate [and] Mr Mokhtar exercised them four months into his bankruptcy and received $81,513.97 without accounting for the sale to his bankrupt estate whose money it was; and (5) Mr Mokhtar had made preferential payments to multiple family members and friends…. 104 Further, the Trustee alleged that Mr Mokhtar had failed to disclose rental income received by him from the Strauss Road property which the Trustee only found out about when the ATO provided him with Mr Mokhtar's 2019 and 2020 income tax returns. 105 First, as to (1), it will be recalled that Mr Mokhtar disclosed that Nabil was also an owner of the Strauss Road property and gave Nabil's address as the Strauss Road property in his statement of affairs. Further, additional notes to Mr Mokhtar's statement of affairs disclosed that he had been given his wife's share of the property as part of the Settlement Agreement between them. 106 These disclosures plainly raised the question as to how Nabil came to acquire his interest in the property. The statement of affairs did not disclose that information despite the fact that the form required disclosure of the sale, transfer or gift of any assets worth more than $1000 in the last 5 years. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that Mr Mokhtar gave this information to Mr Humphries. 107 That information and, in particular, the fact that Nabil had purchased his interest for peppercorn consideration, came to light only as a result of the Trustee's investigations. Mr Mokhtar's failure to explain the transfer and produce relevant documents, including the separation agreement, was a longstanding issue which contributed to the deterioration of the relationship between Mr Mokhtar and the Trustee. It was at the heart of several of the notices of objection issued by the Trustee. 108 Secondly, as to the allegation in (2), on 29 June 2022 Mr Mokhtar wrote to the Official Receiver seeking to amend his statement of affairs: R5 at 361-2. In that letter, Mr Mokhtar said that, upon reviewing the draft separation agreement against the statement of affairs, he had come across "an anomaly". Thus, while the statement of affairs referred to his wife purchasing his half share in the matrimonial property for $122,922.73, the separation agreement referred to Mr Mokhtar's former spouse transferring her legal interest in the matrimonial home to Mr Mokhtar in the sum of $65,000 only. In the letter, Mr Mokhtar admitted that "The balance $57,922.73 [being the difference between these amounts] is a payment which was paid into my ex-wife's bank account which in fact should have been made to my bank following the refinancing of the investment (Strauss Road) property." 109 As such, the refinancing was admitted by Mr Mokhtar but had not been disclosed to the Trustee in the statement of affairs. Mr Mokhtar disclosed the refinancing only after the draft separation agreement had been located and provided to the Trustee by Mr Mokhtar's former spouse under cover of a letter dated 26 June 2022. 110 Thirdly, as to (3), Mr Mokhtar's ownership of a 2007 BMW 335i is listed in Mr Humphries file note under the heading "car", and is estimated to be worth between "$15-18k". I accept Mr Mokhtar's evidence that this was the vehicle which he owned at the time of his separation but was later sold to Nabil. However, the documentation provided by Transport NSW on 1 March 2022, in response to a request by the Trustee, indicates that Mr Mokhtar sold the BMW on 16 December 2017. It is no doubt for this reason that Mr Mokhtar represented that he did not have a vehicle in his debtor's petition. 111 Further, the documentation from Transport NSW stated that the car was transferred with a seller declared value of $32,000.00 and a buyer declared value of $31,000.00. The car was, however, valued at $20,000 in the separation agreement. Given these estimates of the value of the car including at the point of sale, Mr Mokhtar's evidence in cross-examination, that he only sold the car to Nabil for around $7000.00 because there was a problem with the gearbox, was not convincing. However, there is no need for me to determine the truth of that evidence. It suffices for present purposes that the evidence establishes that sale of the car was not disclosed in Mr Mokhtar's statement of affairs despite the requirement for Mr Mokhtar to disclose the sale of any assets worth more than $1000 in the previous 5 years. 112 Fourthly, with respect to (4), Mr Humphries wrote the number "217500" in his file note under the heading "ASSETTS[sic]/INVESTMENTS /SHARES". Mr Mokhtar contended in re-examination, and I accept, that this was a reference to the number of company shares which he owned at that time and disclosed to Mr Humphries. In addition, at the bottom of the document, a notation provides that "156k shares sold - July 2017". In this regard, it will be recalled that Mr Mokhtar's statement of affairs, which accompanied his petition, referred to a series of shareholdings sold prior to the bankruptcy. 113 It can, therefore, reasonably be inferred from the file note that, at his meeting with Mr Humphries in December 2017, Mr Mokhtar did in fact disclose to Mr Humphries the existence of his share holding, as well as the sale of the other shares. It follows, contrary to the respondent's submissions, that I do not accept that Mr Mokhtar deliberately concealed information from Mr Humphries about his ownership of certain shares. On that basis, I also infer that Mr Mokhtar did not intend to conceal the existence of those shares from the Trustee but rather expected that they would be included in his statement of affairs, which he thought would be prepared by Mr Humphries. 114 However, Mr Mokhtar received $81,513.97 into his AMP deposit account on 24 July 2018, after he exercised the Amplifon employee stock options. This was some four and a half months after he entered into bankruptcy. Mr Mokhtar agreed in cross-examination that he did not disclose the receipt of those funds to the Trustee and accepted that the Trustee found out about the receipt of those funds only after he obtained the statement for Mr Mokhtar's AMP deposit account. Mr Mokhtar's explanation for not disclosing the funds to the Trustee was "Because this was my - my - part of my income. This was my money." Mr Mokhtar further gave evidence he never knew that he had to declare the money. This reflects, at best, a complete lack of appreciation of his obligations as a bankrupt, as does his explanation for what occurred to that money - namely, that he gambled the money away. At worst, it was a deliberate lie in an attempt to defect or minimise responsibility for his conduct. 115 In the fifth place as to (5), the Trustee gave evidence that in 2020 he sought to recover preferential payments of money made by Mr Mokhtar to a friend and two cousins but, despite successfully reaching agreements with them, they all "reneged": First Trustee Affidavit at [36]. However, the evidence on which the Trustee relied in support of this contention went no higher than this and is insufficient for me to make any findings with respect to this allegation, save to note that the issue appears to have been another contributing factor to the breakdown in the relationship between Mr Mokhtar and the Trustee. 116 Sixthly, as to (6) above, the evidence does not establish that, on the balance of probabilities, there was rental income for Mr Mokhtar to disclose from the Strauss Road property at the time that he signed the debtor's petition and statement of affairs. 117 On 2 June 2022, the Trustee issued a demand for books of associated entity to Mr Mokhtar seeking all residential tenancy agreements entered into since March 2018 regarding the Strauss Road property and documents showing the rent collected by Mr Mokhtar from the tenants. Attached to that demand was relevantly the front page of a residential tenancy agreement dated 8 December 2020 between Nabil, purportedly as landlord of the Strauss Road property, and third parties, as tenants. At trial, counsel for the Trustee submitted that "the turning point" in his relationship with Mr Mokhtar "was when [the Trustee] saw the property was being rented". 118 I accept the Trustee's evidence that he became aware of the fact that Mr Mokhtar received rental income in the financial year ending 2019 of $19,040.00 (gross) and the financial year ending 2020 of $22,012.00 (gross) through a document that the Trustee obtained from the Australian Taxation Office on 2 November 2022 about Mr Mokhtar's tax affairs. 119 However, I am satisfied on the evidence that no lease had been entered into with respect to the Strauss Road property at the time when Mr Mokhtar entered into bankruptcy. Rather, a lease was entered into without the Trustee's knowledge and permission, at some time during the 2018/2019 financial year. 120 In cross-examination, Mr Mokhtar variously claimed that all of the rental income went to Nabil, the rental income may have appeared in his tax return by mistake, and the Trustee was aware of the rental income. It is clear from these inconsistent statements that Mr Mokhtar could not give a satisfactory reason for why the income was not disclosed to the Trustee despite the income and associated deductions being claimed in his tax returns. I do not accept his evidence as credible or reliable. Nor do I consider that Mr Mokhtar gave a satisfactory explanation for why he was not a party to the lease in saying that "Nabil … took over the lease for me. It was just too much - too much - I had too much on my mind…". The more likely explanation as to why Mr Mokhtar was not a party to the lease is that he could not be because his interest in the Strauss Road property had vested in the Trustee, who was ignorant of the lease. 121 It follows that there were a number of material omissions from the information provided by Mr Mokhtar in his statement of affairs, as well as a number of transactions which occurred later in respect of property, which the evidence establishes were not disclosed to the Trustee by Mr Mokhtar. 122 I accept, however, that the applicant's evidence is credible as to his belief that both his financial advisor and the Trustee were advising him and assisting him in the preparation of the debtor's petition and statement of affairs. I also accept that Mr Mokhtar may have been confused about, or did not fully understand, the individual roles of his financial advisor and the Trustee with regard to his bankruptcy. I accept that he believed at the time of filing his debtor's petition that they each had a role to play in the preparation of the debtor's petition and statement of affairs. That said, as I have earlier held, there is no doubt that Mr Mokhtar's financial advisor and the Trustee would have informed him of the essential nature of his responsibilities of disclosure. Indeed, in his evidence about the first meeting with Mr Humphries in December 2017, Mr Mokhtar acknowledged that "obviously, I had to declare" in the context of explaining that the financial position statement recorded information provided by him to Mr Humphries. 123 Mr Mokhtar also repeatedly sought to justify his failure to read the statement of affairs due to mental health issues at the time. As I have earlier found, I accept that he was under a lot of stress given the breakdown in his marriage, his financial situation, his alcohol abuse, and his gambling problems. I also accept that he was experiencing mental health issues. Furthermore, Mr Mokhtar was still functioning at work as an audiometrist, as he agreed in cross examination. I do not therefore accept that he was incapable of understanding his responsibilities as a bankrupt, that he did not understand that he was required to confirm the accuracy of the information contained in the declaration at the end of the statement of affairs by signing it, or that he would have been incapable of comprehending the information contained in the statement of affairs, if he had taken the trouble to read it properly. 124 Save for the existence of the shares still owned by Mr Mokhtar when he filed for bankruptcy, there is no evidence corroborating Mr Mokhtar's evidence that he disclosed everything to Mr Humphries. Mr Mokhtar repeatedly sought to blame Mr Humphries and the Trustee for issues that arose during the bankruptcy, including omissions from the debtor's petition and statement of affairs. Notwithstanding his confusion as to the role of Mr Humphries and the Trustee, it was Mr Mokhtar's responsibility to ensure his debtor's petition was accurate. By his own admission, Mr Mokhtar did not do so. Any responsibility for the failure to check those documents is his and his alone. Mr Mokhtar's attempts to shift responsibility to Mr Humphries and the Trustee for the omissions from his statement of affairs, on the basis that he relied on them to include all of the information he disclosed cannot be accepted as a justification for their omission, even if his evidence in this regard is believed. It follows, at the very least, that Mr Mokhtar exhibited a cavalier approach to completion of the statement of affairs contrary to his responsibilities under the Bankruptcy Act and the declaration which he signed in the statement of affairs, even if he did not intend deliberately to conceal those assets and prior transactions.
5.3 April 2018: The Trustee's first report to creditors and the reassessment of income contributions 125 On 10 April 2018, the Trustee issued a report to creditors. In this report, the Trustee estimated his remuneration for administration of the estate would be $17,180.00 plus GST and disbursements. He stated that "[t]o the extent that there are insufficient funds recovered from the estate to pay my remuneration, it will be written off": Piscopo affidavit sworn 20 February 2023 at [17] and Exhibit R5 at 60-78. The Trustee submits that this was stating the usual position with respect to bankruptcies in the absence of creditor funding (RS at [12]). 126 On 20 April 2018, the Trustee wrote to Mr Mokhtar advising that his income contributions liability for CAP 1 had been reassessed pursuant to s 139W(2) of the Bankruptcy Act in the following terms: CAP 1 liability 10,814.37 Less paid 0 Balance payable 10,814.37 The assessment for CAP 1 is provisional and will be reviewed at the end of the year. You are required to make either 11 monthly payments of $989.12 or 24 fortnightly payments of $450.60. 127 The letter provided details for the payments to be made and advised Mr Mokhtar that he had the right to apply to the Inspector-General for an internal review of the assessment. Attached to the letter was the Notice of Contribution Assessment which contained details of the assessment based on the total income as advised by Mr Mokhtar in the amount of $140,000.00. 128 It was not in dispute that the letter accurately recorded that no income contributions had been made by Mr Mokhtar as at the date of the letter.
5.4 Entry into the agreement on 11 January 2019, with respect to the Strauss Road property 129 As earlier stated, in his statement of affairs, Mr Mokhtar stated that the estimated resale value of the Strauss Road property was $730,000. In June 2018, the Trustee obtained three market appraisals for the Strauss Road property. These respectively estimated the value of the property at between $700,000.00-$730,000.00, $750,000.00-$800,000.00, and $690,000.00-$870,000.00. Given the wide range of values, a fourth valuation was obtained by the Trustee, which valued the property at $710,000.00. 130 In or about September 2018, Mr Mokhtar and the Trustee discussed the possibility of Mr Mokhtar purchasing the bankrupt estate's interest in the Strauss Road property. 131 On 12 October 2018, the Trustee provided Mr Mokhtar with a letter enclosing a draft property agreement relating to the Strauss Road Property. On 11 January 2019, Mr Mokhtar signed the property agreement with the Trustee relating to the Strauss Road property (the Property Agreement), which provided that Mr Mokhtar would purchase the Trustee's equity in the Strauss Road property from the bankrupt estate for $12,000.00 plus accruing interest pursuant to the terms of that agreement. The agreement stated that the Trustee's "practical concern in Land is that he obtain for the bankrupt estate the value of the Equity plus accruing interest pursuant the terms of this agreement ("the Value") after accounting for priority encumbrances." 132 The agreement set out a payment schedule for regular payments of $100.00 each week commencing 21 January 2019 and for interest payments of $100.00 to be paid every week after $12,000.00 is paid until the interest was paid in full. The agreement also provided that time was of the essence for each regular and interest payment by each payment date. The Trustee retained an equitable right in the property until the value was paid in full and had a discretion to consent to the mortgage of the land. Each party acknowledged that they had the opportunity to obtain independent legal advice and to ask questions of the Trustee before execution of the agreement.
5.5 Filing of the first notice of objection to discharge from bankruptcy on 19 January 2021 133 On 28 July 2020, the Trustee also reminded Mr Mokhtar among other things that a consequence of him falling behind in his income contribution payments was potentially an extension of his bankruptcy by a further five years. On 30 July 2020, the Trustee followed up with an email to Mr Mokhtar providing a summary of the payments made by him in relation to the Property Agreement and income contribution payments. 134 By 14 March 2021, Mr Mokhtar would have been discharged from bankruptcy by virtue of the default 3-year statutory time period: s 149(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy Act. Mr Mokhtar said that he had expected his bankruptcy to last until around 14 March 2021. However, the Trustee contended that Mr Mokhtar's expectations were misplaced as he received repeated warnings in writing and verbally that his bankruptcy could be extended to 8 years (see First Trustee Affidavit at [14], [16] and [18]) and yet still failed to pay his income contributions (RS) at [10]). 135 Shortly before the end of the default three-year statutory time period, on 19 January 2021 the Trustee filed a notice of objection to discharge from bankruptcy on the basis that Mr Mokhtar's income contributions were $32,372.71 in arrears. In cross-examination, Mr Mokhtar accepted that he had failed to pay the income contributions which formed the basis of the first objection notice. The effect of that objection was (as stated in the notice) to extend the bankruptcy to the expected date of discharge of 15 March 2026, being the 8-year statutory maximum: s 149 of the Bankruptcy Act. The grounds for filing the objection were as follows: 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 On 20 May 2020 Mr Mokhtar was assessed or reassessed as being liable to pay income contributions as follows: Year 1: $13,421.98 Year 2: $16,395.36 Year 3: $13,424.27 Total: $43,241.61 At the time, the total paid was $9,9093.90[sic]. As of 19 January 2021, the total paid is $10,868.90 leaving an outstanding balance of $32,372.71. Mr Mokhtar was reminded a number of times about the increasing arrears and the consequences of failing to pay, the last time being by email on 26 November 2020. There was one payment of $250.00 since that time. 136 However, the objection was withdrawn on 2 May 2022. By this time, several other notices of objection to discharge from bankruptcy had been filed, as I later explain.
5.6 The meeting at the Top Ryde Shopping Centre on 20 March 2021 (issue 2) 137 On 20 March 2021, Mr Mokhtar, accompanied by a woman described as his friend, and the Trustee, with his associate, met at the Top Ryde Shopping. Shortly thereafter on 21 March 2021, the Trustee emailed Mr Mokhtar links to potential lenders for people in his situation. 138 It was common ground that the purpose of the meeting on 20 March 2021 was to discuss a pathway for Mr Mokhtar to be discharged from bankruptcy. The parties also agreed that the possible sale and refinancing of the Strauss Road property was discussed. However, the contents of the discussion are disputed between the parties. The effect of this conversation was, in Mr Mokhtar's view, that he could sell the Strauss Road property and use the proceeds to pay out his income contributions so that he could be released from bankruptcy. The Trustee, however, staunchly denied that he had approved any such course of action. 139 The Trustee provided a vivid account of the meeting at Top Ryde Shopping Centre and its surrounding circumstances in the First Trustee Affidavit and in his oral evidence. As I have earlier found, the Trustee's affidavit contained direct speech on this matter and is to be treated with caution. However, I found the Trustee's evidence in cross-examination to be generally persuasive on this matter. 140 The Trustee explained that he remembered the meeting clearly because he was en route to spend time at the Blue Mountains with his associate when they stopped for the meeting. He also said that he discussed the meeting with his associate in detail afterwards, with his associate repeatedly telling him that she had a bad feeling about Mr Mokhtar and did not think he could be trusted. 141 The Trustee's position was that he needed to get the best outcome for the creditors in the circumstances. He was following economic predictions that property prices in Sydney would collapse by mid-2021 and thought that the value of the Strauss Road property would soon fall. The Trustee gave evidence that, at the time, he understood a sale of the property was not a viable option because Nabil was not interested in selling and obtaining Court orders to enable a forced sale to proceed would cost approximately $200,000.00. A forced sale was therefore not, in is view at the time, a viable option. 142 In these circumstances, the Trustee said he took what he regarded to be an exceptional step and not something he had offered before in any other bankruptcy. The Trustee offered to Mr Mokhtar the option of Mr Moktar refinancing his equity in the property and being discharged from the bankruptcy for an agreed sum representing the value of the refinanced equity. The Trustee regarded this as a commercial settlement which would at least enable some moneys to flow through to the creditors. In essence, the Trustee's evidence was that, while less than ideal, in the prevailing economic conditions and uncertainty introduced by the COVID-19 pandemic, the recovery of at least some money was better than none. 143 On the other hand, the Trustee considered, at the time, that if the property was sold, half of the proceeds of the sale would have to go to the bankrupt estate. He said that any other outcome would be inconsistent with his duties as a trustee to act in the best interests of the creditors. That was plainly correct. If Mr Mokhtar's equity in the property was sold, the Trustee should receive the value of that equity in the property whether that was $50,000.00 or $100,000.00, or some other amount, provided that it did not exceed the amount owing to creditors because that is what his duties to the creditors would require. 144 I accept that the Trustee explained the gist of this to Mr Mokhtar at the meeting. However, I consider that Mr Mokhtar either misunderstood what he was being told, or alternatively, over time, reinterpreted it to convey the result that he wanted - that he could personally sell the property. In effect, there was a fundamental disconnect between the understanding of Mr Mokhtar and that of the Trustee. This misinterpretation led to a more significant misunderstanding as to the import of the 3 May 2021 letter, which in Mr Mokhtar's submission, precipitated the breakdown in the relationship between him and the Trustee.
5.7 The Trustee's letter of 3 May 2021 (issue 3) 145 On 3 May 2021, Mr Mokhtar telephoned the Trustee asking if he could provide a figure to give to the bank in his application for refinance. The Trustee immediately sent Mr Mokhtar the following email: Hi Ahmad. I have given you a calculator to work out how much is required to pay out your bankruptcy. It changes on a daily basis. For that reason, you have to enter the day of final payment into the orange cell. The calculator will then calculate how much is required. Please get back to me with any questions. … 146 The attached excel spreadsheet titled "Payout figure for Bankruptcy" included various payout figures and stated the "total payable" amount to be $65,598.55. The Trustee described this as a pro forma calculator which he had given many times before to bankrupts whose bankruptcy had been extended to calculate income contributions payable. He explained in his evidence that income contributions payable change daily because the income contributions in the year of discharge are payable on a pro rata basis. He further explained that, in this case, the calculator included additional items requested by Mr Mokhtar. I accept the trustee's evidence about the calculator. 147 Later that day, the Trustee received another telephone call from Mr Mokhtar requesting a letter to give to the bank as his broker was having problems convincing the bank that the Trustee had authorised the refinancing. As a result, the Trustee sent Mr Mokhtar an email with the subject heading "Your estate". The email stated, "[h]ere is a letter you can give to the bank" and attached the 3 May Letter addressed "To whom it may concern". The letter provided: Dear Sir/Madam Ahmad Shaib Mokhtar NSW 931/18/5 I am Trustee of the bankrupt estate of Ahmad Shaib Mokhtar. I attach a copy of certificate of appointment. The bankrupt estate has an interest in the property at 18 Strauss Road, St Clair NSW 2759 (the "Property"). That interest is secured by a caveat on title. The other party with an interest in the Property is a certain Nabil Mokhtar. As Trustee, I have the power to discharge A S Mokhtar from bankruptcy. I will discharge A S Mokhtar from bankruptcy on the payment of approximately $66,000.00 to the bankrupt estate. A S Mokhtar has requested my permission to refinance the mortgage over the Property in order to raise the funds for his discharge from bankruptcy. I hereby grant A S Mokhtar permission to refinance the mortgage over the Property in order to secure his discharge from bankruptcy, provided approximately $66,000.00 is paid to the bankrupt estate at the time of settlement. Simultaneously on payment, I will discharge A S Mokhtar from bankruptcy and remove the caveat on title. The exact amount required for discharge will be confirmed once a date is fixed for settlement. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. (Emphasis in original). 148 The letter was signed personally by the Trustee. 149 In his evidence, Mr Mokhtar claimed that the 3 May letter "literally deceived" him into thinking that if he paid the Trustee $66,000.00, either by selling or refinancing the property, he would be discharged from bankruptcy. He said he could not understand why, when the Strauss Road property was in fact sold and the estate received $126,000.00 from the sale (as I shortly explain), he was not discharged from bankruptcy. This, together with the objection notices filed by the Trustee commencing in December 2021, was said by Mr Mokhtar to have "made my life miserable and hell, and I just - we - I just completely lost trust in him". 150 In this regard, the applicant submitted that: It cannot be surprising that Mr Mokhtar was "perplexed" when the Property eventually sold, and more than $66k was directed to the Trustee, who declined to discharge him. That conclusion can be reached without there being any suggestion of impropriety or misconduct on the part of either protagonist. Even if the Trustee intended the May Letter to be strictly for the purposes of a refinancing, the possibility of confusion or misunderstanding is patent in circumstances where several persons were communicating (not always directly with each other), language and communication issues could have been a factor, and intentions may have been misunderstood. (Applicant's closing submissions (ACS) at [56].) 151 Prior to the 3 May letter and sale of the Strauss Road property, Mr Mokhtar said that he and the Trustee had had "a very good relationship from the beginning". The applicant therefore submitted that the 3 May letter was the turning point in the relationship between him and the Trustee. He further submitted that it was his complaint to AFSA about being misled by the 3 May letter which prompted the Trustee to file multiple frequent objection notices, given that before then the bankruptcy had been largely unremarkable with the Trustee taking relatively limited investigatory steps: ACS at 24. 152 The Trustee, however, was emphatic in his evidence that the 3 May letter was intended to assist Mr Mokhtar in refinancing the Strauss Road property and nothing more. I accept that this was the Trustee's intention. As I earlier explained, there were good reasons why the Trustee drew a distinction between a sale and refinancing of the property. He could not consistently with his duties as trustee agree that the payment of $66,000, if obtained from a sale of the property to a third party, would necessarily suffice to discharge the bankruptcy. It is important to bear in mind that that sum would have fallen far short of providing a dollar-for-dollar return to the creditors on the monies owed them and proved in the bankruptcy. 153 However, I also accept that Mr Mokhtar genuinely misunderstood the purpose of the calculator and letter and thought that they stated the amount that he needed to pay to get out of bankruptcy. Specifically, in my view, Mr Mokhtar genuinely read the calculator, it accompanying email, and the 3 May letter together as conveying that $66,000 payment would suffice for him to be discharged from bankruptcy, irrespective of whether that money came from a successful refinancing of Mr Mokhtar's equity in the property, or from the sale of the property. As Mr Mokhtar said in his evidence, he could not understand why the source of the $66,000 should make any difference to the question of whether he was discharged from bankruptcy. In reaching this view, I have given particular weight to the fact that the calculator and accompanying email were addressed directly to Mr Mokhtar and not to the bank, and that the email simply stated, "I have given you a calculator to work out how much is required to pay out your bankruptcy". The calculator also stated in unqualified terms: "Payout figure for Bankruptcy". 154 Mr Mokhtar's misunderstanding is also reflected in correspondence from Mr Mokhtar to the Trustee on 29 November 2021 in which Mr Mokhtar expressed his confusion at not being released from bankruptcy on receipt of the proceeds of sale from the Strauss Road property, and his feelings that he is being unjustly treated. In that email, he wrote: I refer to Exhibit 1 [the 3 May letter] above attached whereby you made it very clear that should I refinance and pay you the sum of approximately $66,000.00 you would immediately release me from bankruptcy. I further refer to Exhibit 2 [the second letter of 3 May] above and attached Calculator that you sent with calculations consistent with what you previously stated in Exhibit 1. It was clear to me that upon payment of approximately $66,000.00 plus accruing interest you would remove me from bankruptcy. Admittedly, that was in May 2021. I am therefore perplexed as how when the unrelated party to bankruptcy decided to sell the house you compulsorily received all of my share which amounted to well over $126,000 more than double the amount requested 4 months earlier. As there was no material change between May 2021 & October 2021 I am at a total loss as to why: 1. I have not been released from bankruptcy. 2. If your offer of $66,000 plus accruing Interest [sic] was paid upon settlement of the Sale of the property, why have I not received any surplus funds? 3. And even ignoring the question of "surplus funds" above. Why have I not been released from Bankruptcy? And why are you threatening me with garnishing my salary? I am perplexed Sam…. (Emphasis omitted.) 155 Furthermore, in my view, Mr Mokhtar's understanding of the correspondence on 3 May 2021, including the calculator, was not unreasonable given in particular the unqualified terms in which the heading to the calculator and accompanying email were expressed. I note that this view accords with that reached by AFSA in its decision of 27 May 2022 on Mr Mokhtar's complaint of 30 November 2021. This included a complaint that Mr Mokhtar believed that the Trustee had misled him by the Trustee's representation in the 3 May 2021 letter that, if the sum of $66,000 was received by the bankrupt estate, the Trustee would release Mr Mokhtar from bankruptcy. Specifically, AFSA found that: on a plain reading of the letter of 3 May 2021, it is not unreasonable for you to assume that the amount of $66,000 would discharge you from bankruptcy. In addition, while the individual elements of calculator related to liabilities incurred since the bankruptcy, the title of the spreadsheet 'payout figure for bankruptcy' is misleading. In the circumstances, I find the Trustee's correspondence of 3 May 2021 and the calculator omit key information required by a user of the communication to make a fully informed decision. As such I have found that this communication with you has not met the standards and those set out in rule 42-15(2) of the Rules. I therefore have found the complaint on this ground to be justified.
5.8 Termination of the Property Agreement by the Trustee on 21 July 2021 156 On 23 June 2021, Nabil emailed a letter from him to the Trustee dated 8 June 2021, which stated: … From information provided, you will discharge AS Mokhtar from bankruptcy on the payment of approximately $66,000 to the bankrupt estate. You have also mentioned that you will be providing Ahmad Shaib Mokhtar with a discount on his income contribution. We request the offer of $55,000 be accepted. We have requested for your permission to refinance/ sale of the Property in order to raise the funds for his discharge from bankruptcy. Once the mortgage is refinanced or property is sold the amount $55,000 will be paid to the bankrupt estate at the time of settlement. Simultaneously on payment, you will discharge AS Mokhtar from bankruptcy and remove the caveat on title. The exact amount required for discharge will be confirmed once a date is fixed for settlement. 157 On 7 July 2021, the Trustee advised Mr Mokhtar that he had rejected the offer of $55,000 to effect Mr Mokhtar's discharge. 158 On 21 July 2021, the Trustee wrote to Mr Mokhtar stating that he was terminating the Property Agreement because Mr Mokhtar was "nearly $10,000 in arrears. The last payment was over one year ago". The $3,100.00 already paid by Mr Mokhtar pursuant to the Property Agreement would be credited against his outstanding income contributions liability.
5.9 Sale of the Strauss Road Property on 3 November 2021 and receipt by the bankrupt estate of $125,281.67 159 On 24 September 2021, the Trustee received an email from Mr David Sharrock of Perpetual Conveyancing advising him that Mr Mokhtar and Nabil intended to sell the Strauss Road property. The letter read: … We confirm we act for Ahmad Mokhtar and Nabil Mokhtar in relation to their sale of 18 Strauss Road, St Clair. We note you have a caveat registered on title in relation to Ahmed Mokhtar. We confirm completion of this matter is due 3 November, 2021. Please provide our office with an updated payout figure for the date of completion and account details for the settlement amount. Please also advise your legal representative to be invited into the PEXA settlement workspace to have the caveat withdraw on completion. … 160 I accept the Trustee's evidence that he was surprised by the correspondence as he had neither authorised, nor been aware of, the sale or that the property had been put up for sale. Nonetheless, following correspondence with the real estate agents, on 24 September 2021 the Trustee approved the sale of the property in the following terms: Dear David and Angelo, I confirm that I am trustee of the bankrupt estate of Ahmad Mokhtar. I attach a copy of my certificate of appointment. I confirm that the bankrupt estate has a half interest in the property which is protected by my caveat. I was not aware that the property had actually been put on the market for sale although there was talk of it May I please have a copy of the following for my file: • The agency agreement and marketing proposal • Notes regarding interest in the property and offers made • The conveyancing costs agreement Please also keep me posted. I will be in touch in due course for settlement regarding my caveat. … 161 The caveat was removed from the title, and the Strauss Road property settled on 3 November 2021. The bankrupt estate received $125,281.67 after costs. 162 Mr Mokhtar and Nabil's conduct in this regard unquestionably placed further strain on the already fractured relationship between the Trustee and Mr Mokhtar.
5.10 The Update Report to Creditors on 11 November 2021 163 On 11 November 2021, the Trustee issued an Update Report to Creditors. In that report, the Trustee estimated his remuneration for the bankrupt estate to be $62,098.00. He also stated that "[m]ost of the work has in fact been done…". The Trustee, however, submits that this statement: was no more than noting that of the remuneration for which creditor approval was being sought, most of it being retrospective rather than prospective. That statement does not mean, for example, that there would not be more work if required pursuant to Mr Piscopo's statutory duties if further material came to light requiring investigation - which is what in fact happened. (RS at [18].)
5.11 The complaint by Mr Mokhtar against the Trustee on 30 November 2021 to AFSA regarding the 3 May letter and the tone of the Trustee's correspondence 164 By November 2021, the relationship between Mr Mokhtar and the Trustee had deteriorated significantly. This is apparent from the tone of correspondence between the parties attached to Mr Mokhtar's first complaint to AFSA on 30 November 2021. For example, an attachment to an email from the Trustee to Mr Mokhtar on 29 November 2021 sets out allegations by the Trustee and Mr Mokhtar's responses to them: [the Trustee] As was explained to you multiple times, the agreement was that you buy the interest in the property from the bankrupt estate and it only would become yours on discharge, not before. The statement you signed in your bankruptcy paperwork acknowledged that you lose your assets on becoming a bankrupt. Your email appears to suggest that you retained some interest in the property which is not the case. [Mr Mokhtar] I am perplexed at what you are saying. I think you are suggesting that you had the interest in the property in which case if that is correct I could never have sold the property because as you rightly claimed you had a caveat on the property and the property could not be sold without your consent which you did consent. So, stop this nonsense about me committing criminal offence and threatening me as to whether you should report it or not. You talk nonsense half the time. If you think you are going continue bullying me like you have for the past 4 years or so forget it. You have been a nightmare to deal with and your ethics are certainly questionable. To be frank you would make the movie the Horrors of Elm Street look like a beautiful romance. Smooth talker - full of shit. … [the Trustee] In summary, I have always acted fairly with you and in fact made allowances in your case which other bankrupts may not have had the benefit of. Unfortunately, the reason why you are in your current situation is because of your own actions. [Mr Mokhtar] The only truth in the above statement is that I am in my current situation because of my actions. You never acted fairly with me. You just saw an opportunity to milk the cow from a fragile person who was down and out and shamefully is attempting to continue with the charade. [the Trustee] I think the horse may have bolted in resolving this issue between ourselves. I believe that the slanging match between ourselves has now imploded and it is - bring it on - I have a good backer - ready to take you on at your own game- but based on the collated evidence that we have not embellishing the truth like you constantly do (Emphasis added.) 165 The tone of Mr Mokhtar's correspondence is disrespectful, discourteous, completely inappropriate, and abusive. However, that does not justify the tone of the Trustee's response as emphasised above which was likely only to inflame tensions and did not reflect his professional obligations of objectivity. 166 As earlier explained, on 30 November 2021, Mr Mokhtar made a complaint to AFSA against the Trustee on four grounds, namely, that: (1) The Trustee's 3 May letter misled Mr Mokhtar, leading him to make decisions about the Strauss Road property and believe that if approximately $66,000 was received by the bankrupt estate, he would be released from bankruptcy. (2) The Trustee had misled Mr Mokhtar regarding the basis of terminating the Property Agreement. (3) The Trustee had inappropriately sought to recover potentially void transactions from two cousins and a friend. (4) The Trustee's correspondence to Mr Mokhtar, particularly concerning Mr Mokhtar's mental health, was inappropriate. 167 The AFSA senior inspector upheld the first and fourth grounds of complaint and dismissed the second and third grounds. As I have earlier explained, the first ground was upheld on the basis that it was not unreasonable for Mr Mokhtar to assume that the amount of $65,000 would discharge him from bankruptcy and the Trustee's correspondence omitted key information required by a user of the communication to make a fully informed decision. 168 On the fourth ground, the inspector found that the tone of some of the Trustee's written communications to Mr Mokhtar fell short of the high standard expected of trustees. Specifically, the inspector concluded r 42-15 of the Insolvency Practice Rules (Bankruptcy) 2016 (IPRB), which requires communications by a registered trustee to be "expressed in a professionally courteous tone and manner", was not met. 169 The senior inspector identified two emails from the Trustee which did not meet the standards set out in the rules: First, the Trustee's email to Mr Mokhtar of 29 November 2021 at 4:21pm: You claim to have had mental health issues coming into your bankruptcy and throughout your bankruptcy. You are an educated person working in a medical field. If you have such issues, you ought to get professional help. The only reason why you have not been reported to date is on account of your alleged mental health issues about which I am now having doubts as I do not recall you providing any evidence of such and the tone of your email below is inconsistent with having mental health issues. Second, the Trustee's email to Mr Mokhtar of 30 November 2023 at 5:45pm: I did not threaten you in any way other than to remind you that when you commit offences I have a statutory duty to report you (see Section 19(1)((h)) and the only reason why I have not reported what you did in attempting to sell the property behind my back as trustee is in consideration of your alleged mental health issues which you have raised as the reason why you ought not to cooperate no [sic] various fronts. I also reminded you of the grounds for extending your bankruptcy. It is my statutory duty to remind you (see Section 19(1)(g)). 170 Notwithstanding the understandable stress which Mr Mokhtar's reprehensible conduct was no doubt placing on the Trustee, I consider that the Trustee's correspondence shows that the Trustee took Mr Mokhtar's lack of cooperation personally leading to a concern as to his objectivity. In particular, the comments about Mr Mokhtar's mental health in the first of these emails are concerning.
5.12 The complaint by Mr E Seyfarth to AFSA made on 19 May 2022 with respect communications from the Trustee 171 A complaint was also made by Mr E Seyfarth to AFSA on 19 May 2022 with respect to the tone of communications from the Trustee to him. 172 The communications relevantly commence with a response on 4 May 2022 by Mr E Seyfarth to a request for information by the Trustee under s 77A of the Bankruptcy Act in which Mr E Seyfarth wrote: I am not able to recall very much to which your letter refers to events in 2017. I can say most certainly that I do not have in my possession anything which relates to the particular transfers of property to which attachments refer. I am afraid that is as far as I can assist you, having not long ago been diagnosed with re-occurring late-stage cancer which I am subjected to the side-effects of chemotherapy which has affected my memory and ability to mobilise. 173 Notwithstanding Mr E Seyfarth's explanation, the Trustee responded later on the same day, writing, among other things: Up to 16 March 2022, you appeared willing and able to "be of assistance" to me as Trustee. Are you now able to explain why you have changed your mind? … I note that you have not provided any evidence of your medical condition and how it is affecting your memory. Otherwise, it has been noted that you seem to recall enough to be assisting Mr Mokhtar on a regular basis. Your memory, like Mr Mokhtar's, seems to have failed when it came to assisting me as required by my statutory notice and as you offered in your email to me. I await your urgent reply. Otherwise, I intend on lodging an offence referral with the Enforcement division of AFSA without further notice. 174 Mr E Seyfarth also complained about an email communication from the Trustee to him on 18 May 2022, in which the Trustee stated: I note that you appear to be the same Edward Seyfarth as in R v Seyfarth [1998] VSCA 27 (31 August 1998) [hyperlinked] and related judgements which further piques my interest as to why you have been assisting Mr Mokhtar and the extent of your involvement, both historic and continuing. 175 Mr E Seyfarth alleged that both emails were inappropriate and tantamount to a personal attack, that the Trustee seemed to want to associate him with the criminal case, and the Trustee threatened that he had it within his hands to cause Mr E Seyfarth embarrassment. The Trustee apparently responded to the complaint by advising that the allegations about his intentions were "scandalous", that he has a duty to investigate Mr Mokhtar's examinable affairs which included Mr E Seyfarth's involvement, and that he believed he had a duty to challenge Mr E Seyfarth with respect to his alleged memory loss which he considered was not credible. 176 The delegate upheld both complaints. The delegate noted that, even though the Trustee was communicating with Mr E Seyfarth in circumstances where he considered that Mr E Seyfarth had not fully cooperated with him in accordance with the Bankruptcy Act, "the high standards expected of trustees apply notwithstanding any perceived lack of co-operation by a third-party." The delegate considered that the tone of the Trustee's communications on 4 May 2022 and 18 May 2022 fell short of the high standards expected of trustees. Contrary to r 42-15 of the IPRB, they were "not expressed in a professionally courteous tone and manner." With respect to the second email from the Trustee on 18 May 2022, the delegate also found that: • It appears to have made unsupported allegations in attempting to link the matter with your conduct with respect to the ongoing administration of this estate. • While the Trustee has advised that the intention of his emails was to secure the records about the property settlement between Mr Mokhtar and the ex-wife, your view that it was a personal attack on you and a potential threat, which the Trustee has within his hands to cause you embarrassment is not unreasonable. 177 I agree with the findings by the delegate which also further indicate that the Trustee's frustration and stress as a result of Mr Mokhtar's conduct and his assumptions as to the motives underlying Mr E Seyfarth's response on 4 May 2022 were impacting on his capacity to undertake his task objectively and therefore upon his judgment.
5.13 The tone of correspondence with Mr Mokhtar's former spouse 178 The highly defensive tone of correspondence from the Trustee to Mr Mokhtar's former spouse is also indicative of a deterioration in the Trustee's capacity to undertake his investigations dispassionately and objectively. 179 For example, on 5 May 2022, the Trustee emailed Mr Mokhtar's former spouse a notice to produce pursuant to s 77A of the Bankruptcy Act requesting a copy of the transfer of Mr Mokhtar's interest in the former matrimonial home. In response by email dated 18 May 2022, Mr Mokhtar's former spouse wrote: I refer to your letter of 5 May 2022 which was received at my work email address. It is unacceptable that you should write to my work email address and call me on my work mobile number. In the unlikely event that your office should have cause to send any further correspondence, it is to be sent to my personal email address only. If you do proceed to ignore my wishes, I will lodge a formal complaint to the Inspector-General. 180 The Trustee replied on 18 May 2022: Your comments about contacting you through your work email address and work mobile number are unnecessarily hostile. Had I had in my possession other contact details such as your personal email address and personal mobile number, I would have used those, noting however that you did not respond to my letter sent to your home address. I also note that there is in fact no restriction on my using your work contact details and nor was it improper to do so, particularly under the circumstances. Having said that, I will use the personal email address you have now given me unless I have reason to do otherwise. I note however until you give me a personal mobile number I will have no choice but to use your work mobile number. I have a suspicion that Edward Seyfarth assisted you in composing your response. I suggest however that you are better served in seeking advice from a legal practitioner with the relevant experience in these matters and they are relatively few in number. … In short, I suggest that you consider your response to my notice pursuant to Section 77A of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 as I have already had preliminary discussions with the relevant authority regarding reporting you. 181 Mr Mokhtar's former spouse replied on 19 May 2022: It is extremely improper to write to me at my place of work which is a breach of the Privacy Act. Emails to my work address are the property of my employer. As such my employer is within its rights to undertake an audit of all emails which I have received and to which I have responded. My ex-husband's bankruptcy is a private matter and to write to my work is an attempt to cause me embarrassment. … I would like to also point out, I am merely a single mother who is trying to rebuild my life. I have been put through hell and all I am trying to do is get on with my life. You refer to my response to your email as being hostile, your actions have been beyond disgusting. My ex-husband is suicidal - I know you know this, yet you go above and beyond to act unfairly towards his affairs. In the event that my child becomes fatherless, his blood is on your hands. 182 The Trustee replied on the same day: Unfortunately, your understanding of the Privacy Act is faulty. In any case, I have already stated that I am prepared to correspond with you through your private email account. Your comment in that regard is therefore unwarranted. … It is unfortunate that you find the performance of my statutory duties as "disgusting". My statutory notice is addressed to you and does not affect your ex-husband. At any rate, I understand that your ex-husband he has in fact sought professional help for any issues he may have.
5.14 The filing of 17 objection notices by the Trustee between December 2021 and October 2022 (issue 4)
5.14.1 The statutory regime for the filing of notices of objection 183 While this is not an application for judicial review of the filing of the notices of objection, the question of whether the applicant has established that they were filed for an improper purpose, or that their number and timing are indicative of a lack of objectivity, must be considered against the statutory regime. 184 The power of a trustee to file an objection to discharge from bankruptcy is conferred by s 149B of the Bankruptcy Act and is in the following terms: (1) Subject to the following provisions of this Subdivision, at any time before a bankrupt is discharged from bankruptcy under section 149, the trustee may file with the Official Receiver a written notice of objection to the discharge. (2) The trustee of a bankrupt's estate must file a notice of objection to the discharge if the trustee believes: (a) that doing so will help make the bankrupt discharge a duty that the bankrupt has not discharged; and (b) that there is no other way for the trustee to induce the bankrupt to discharge any duties that the bankrupt has not discharged. (Emphasis added.) 185 As the word "may" indicates in s 149B(1), the Trustee has a discretion as to whether or not to file an objection notice. Furthermore, the words "no other way" in s 149B(2)(b) indicate that the filing of an objection notice is effectively to be treated as a measure of last resort. This accords with the seriousness of the consequences of filing such a notice. 186 Section 149C requires a notice of objection to set out the grounds of the objection, consistent with the grounds outlined in s 149D(1). The notice cannot be for a ground of a previous objection that was cancelled. The notice must refer to the evidence or other material that establishes the objection in the Trustee's opinion and must state the Trustee's reason for the objection: s 149C(1)(b)-(c). 187 The grounds under s 149D(1) of the Bankruptcy Act relevantly include that: (aa) any transfer is void against the trustee in the bankruptcy because of section 120 or 122; … (d) the bankrupt, when requested in writing by the trustee to provide written information about the bankrupt's property, income or expected income, failed to comply with the request; (da) after the date of the bankruptcy, the bankrupt intentionally provided false or misleading information to the trustee; (e) the bankrupt failed to disclose any particulars of income or expected income as required by a provision of this Act referred to in subsection 6A(1) or by section 139U; (f) the bankrupt failed to pay to the trustee an amount that the bankrupt was liable to pay under section 139ZG; (g) at any time during the period of 5 years immediately before the commencement of the bankruptcy, or at any time during the bankruptcy, the bankrupt: (i) spent money but failed to explain adequately to the trustee the purpose for which the money was spent; or (ii) disposed of property but failed to explain adequately to the trustee why no money was received as a result of the disposal or what the bankrupt did with the money received as a result of the disposal; … (ha) the bankrupt intentionally failed to disclose to the trustee a liability of the bankrupt that existed at the date of the bankruptcy; (i) the bankrupt has failed, whether intentionally or not, to disclose to the trustee a liability of the bankrupt that existed at the date of the bankruptcy; … (k) the bankrupt refused or failed to sign a document after being lawfully required by the trustee to sign that document; … (ma) the bankrupt intentionally failed to disclose to the trustee the bankrupt's beneficial interest in any property; (n) the bankrupt failed, whether intentionally or not, to disclose to the trustee the bankrupt's beneficial interest in any property. 188 As the table below demonstrates, notices of objection were filed by the Trustee variously on all of these grounds. 189 Section 149K provides that the Inspector-General may review a decision of the Trustee to file a notice of objection if (relevantly) requested to do so by the bankrupt for reasons that appear to be sufficient to justify a review. Section 149N deals with circumstances in which the Inspector-General must and must not cancel a notice, namely: (1) On a review of a decision, if the Inspector‑General is satisfied that: (a) the ground or grounds on which the objection was made was not a ground or were not grounds specified in subsection 149D(1); or (b) there is insufficient evidence to support the existence of the ground or grounds of objection; or (c) the reasons given for objecting on that ground or those grounds do not justify the making of the objection; or (d) a previous objection that was made on that ground or those grounds, or on grounds that included that ground or those grounds, was cancelled; the Inspector‑General must cancel the objection. (1A) An objection must not be cancelled under subsection (1) if: (a) the objection specifies at least one special ground; and (b) there is sufficient evidence to support the existence of at least one special ground specified in the objection; and (c) the bankrupt fails to establish that the bankrupt had a reasonable excuse for the conduct or failure that constituted the special ground. For this purpose, special ground means a ground specified in paragraph 149D(1)(ab), (d), (da), (e), (f), (g), (h), (ha), (ia), (k) or (ma). (1B) In applying subsection (1A), no notice is to be taken of any conduct of the bankrupt after the time when the ground concerned first commenced to exist. … (3) If the Inspector-General is not satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1), the Inspector-General must confirm the decision. 190 Importantly, the Inspector-General (or their delegate) does not decide on a review whether a ground specified in a notice of objection is established by the evidence, but only considers whether the evidence is sufficient to support the ground. 191 Section 149P requires the Inspector-General to give written notice to the bankrupt and the trustee of the Inspector-General's decision on review of a decision or if they have refused request for a review by a bankrupt. Section 149Q provides that an application may be made to the AAT for review of a decision by the Inspector-General on the review or refusal to review a decision of the trustee to file a notice of objection.
5.14.2 The 17 notices of objection 192 Between 16 December 2021 and 16 October 2022, the Trustee filed 17 notices of objection to discharge from bankruptcy to Mr Mokhtar. The table below summarises the grounds on which the notices were filed and the status of the objection notices, including the outcome of requests for review by AFSA made by Mr Mokhtar, in the context of other steps being taken in the course of the bankruptcy and this proceeding: Date Grounds for filing under the Bankruptcy Act Status 1 16 Dec 2021 Section 149D(1)(d): This objection notice is still current. 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. (Relates to the failure to respond to, or inadequate responses to, correspondence from the Trustee.) Section 149D(1)(ha): The bankrupt intentionally failed to disclose to the Trustee a liability of the bankrupt that existed at the date of the bankruptcy. (Relates to debts to family and friends not disclosed in Mr Mokhtar's statement of affairs incurred when he was gambling heavily before his bankruptcy.) 2 20 Dec 2021 Section 149D(1)(ha): The s 149D(1)(ha) objection was withdrawn on 19 January 2022. The bankrupt intentionally failed to disclose to the Trustee a liability of the bankrupt that existed at the date of the bankruptcy. By letter dated 19 April 2022, AFSA decided not to review the Trustee's decision to file the notice of objection to discharge on the second ground because the delegate was not satisfied that Mr Mokhtar had provided sufficient reasons to justify a review of the decision or provided a reasonable excuse by reference to the evidence given by him of mental health issues. (Relates to debts to family and friends not disclosed in Mr Mokhtar's statement of affairs.) Section 149D(1)(d): The bankrupt, when requested in writing by the Trustee to provide written information about the bankrupt's property, income or expected income, failed to comply with the request. (Relates to requests for Mr Mokhtar to provide information about money lent by his former spouse's brother and its repayment in the months prior to the bankruptcy and concerns about the truthfulness of his response.) 3 28 Feb 2022 Section 149D(1)(da): By a letter dated 28 June 2022, AFSA confirmed the Trustee's decision to file the notice of objection on the ground under 149D(1)(da). After the date of the bankruptcy, the bankrupt intentionally provided false or misleading information to the Trustee. (Relates to an email from the bankrupt on 28 February 2022 "allegedly drafted by a mysterious Mr Nicholas Seyfarth" which contained answers which were "intentionally false or misleading as they are contradicted by the evidence…". 4 4 Mar 2022 Section 149D(1)(da): By letter dated 4 July 2022, AFSA advised Mr Mokhtar of the decision not to review the decision by the Trustee to file the notice of objection on the grounds that he had not provided sufficient reasons to justify a review. After the date of the bankruptcy, the bankrupt intentionally provided false or misleading information to the Trustee. (Relates to Mr Mokhtar's request by email on 23 February 2022 to amend his statement of affairs so as falsely to state that he received only a 50% share in the Strauss Road property and in the matrimonial settlement.) 5 8 Mar 2022 Section 149D(1)(da): This notice was withdrawn on 14 June 2022. After the date of the bankruptcy, the bankrupt intentionally provided false or misleading information to the Trustee. (Relates to the allegation that Mr Mokhtar had falsely signed off on letters and emails under the name of Nicholas Seyfarth when no such lawyer existed in NSW, according to the Trustee.) 6 29 Apr 2022 Section 149D(1)(d): By letter dated 9 August 2022, the delegate decided to cancel the Trustee's decision to file the notice of objection on the basis set out below. 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. (Relates to the partial compliance only with the request to provide contact details for Edward and Madeleine Seyfarth who were involved in the marital property settlement. While an email address was provided to the Trustee, mobile numbers were not.) 7 30 Apr 2022 Section 149D(1)(f): This notice was withdrawn on 30 May 2022. The bankrupt failed to pay to the Trustee an amount that the bankrupt was liable to pay under section 139ZG. (Updates the objection to discharge lodged on 19 January 2021 with respect to Mr Mokhtar's failure to pay income contributions.) 8 4 May 2022 Section 149D(1)(g)(ii): This notice was withdrawn on 2 June 2022. The bankrupt disposed of property but failed to explain adequately to the Trustee why no money was received as a result of the disposal or what the bankrupt did with the money received as a result of the disposal. (Relates to Mr Mokhtar's ownership of a BMW before the bankruptcy.) Section 149D(1)(d) of the Act: The bankrupt, when requested in writing by the Trustee to provide written information about the bankrupt's property failed to comply with the request. (Relates to the sale of the BMW.) 9 22 May 2022 Section 149D(1)(f): The bankrupt failed to pay to the Trustee an amount that the bankrupt was liable to pay under s 139ZG. By letter dated 8 June 2022, the delegate decided not to review the decision by the Trustee to file the notice. (Amends the objection to discharge lodged on 30 April 2022 [No 7] with respect to income contributions in arrears.) 29 Jun 2022 Trustee garnishees Mr Mokhtar's income. 10 29 Jun 2022 Section 149D(1)(d): This notice remains current. 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. (Relates to Mr Mokhtar's failure to provide information explaining a number of material transactions in his ANZ bank account in the months before bankruptcy.) 11 4 Jul 2022 Section 149D(1)(aa): This notice remains current. Any transfer is void against the Trustee in the bankruptcy because of section 120 or 122. (Lodged "to induce the bankrupt to cooperate fully in any recovery action" of 50% of the monies from the sale of the Strauss Road property from Nabil.") 12 29 Jul 2022 Section 149D(1)(k): This notice remains current. The bankrupt refused or failed to sign a document after being lawfully required by the Trustee to sign that document. (Relates to Mr Mokhtar's failure to sign letters forwarded to him by the Trustee. The purpose of the objection is "to require Mr Mokhtar take responsibility for his correspondence with a view to Mr Mokhtar fully and truly disclosing information about his examinable affairs in accordance with his statutory duties.") 13 1 Aug 2022 Section 149D(1)(d): This notice remains current. 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. (Relates to evasive responses by Mr Mokhtar to questions about consideration paid by Nabil to acquire interest in the Strauss Road property from Mr Mokhtar's former spouse. The purpose of the objection is stated to be that "Mr Mokhtar's conduct as noted above is consistent with his conduct throughout his bankruptcy in failing to give a full account of the property settlement with his ex-wife and the involvement of Nabil Mokhtar. This objection to discharge is designed to remind Mr Mokhtar that he ought to be assisting his bankrupt estate in accordance with his statutory duty which is to 'aid to the utmost of his ... power in the administration of his ... estate'.") 14 7 Aug 2022 Section 149D(1)(da): This notice remains current. After the date of the bankruptcy, the bankrupt intentionally provided false or misleading information to the Trustee. (Relates to Mr Mokhtar's claim that his marital agreement was verbal, notwithstanding the existence of the written separation agreement, on the basis that the latter was only created for stamp duty purposes "is not credible" and he has put the bankrupt estate "to great trouble and expense in finding a copy of the separation agreement" the existence of which, he initially he denied. The notice urges Mr Mokhtar to cooperate with the Trustee with respect to the property settlement with his former spouse.) 9 Aug 2022 Mr Mokhtar, who was then unrepresented, commences these proceedings 15 17 Aug 2022 Section 149D(1)(d): This notice remains current. 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. (Relates to Mr Mokhtar's failure to supply ANZ Bank account statements, as required by a letter from the Trustee dated 8 August 2022.) 18 Aug 2022 AAT orders that five applications filed by Mr Mokhtar to review Objection Notices be held in abeyance pending the outcome of these proceedings 16 10 Oct 2022 Section 149D(1)(ma): This notice remains current. The bankrupt intentionally failed to disclose to the Trustee the bankrupt's beneficial interest in any property. (Relates to Mr Mokhtar's failure to explain the exercise of his Amplifon share options on 24 July 2022 despite correspondence from the Trustee on 12 September 2022 requiring an explanation.) 17 16 Oct 2022 Section 149D(1)(ma): This notice remains current. The bankrupt intentionally failed to disclose to the Trustee the bankrupt's beneficial interest in any property. Section 149D(1)(d): The bankrupt, when requested in writing by the Trustee to provide written information about the bankrupt's property, income or expected income, failed to comply with the request. (Relate to Mr Mokhtar's failure to explain the exercise of his Amplifon share options on 24 July 2022 despite correspondence from the Trustee on 5 October 2022 requiring an explanation.)
193 One further objection notice was filed by the Trustee on 25 June 2023. 194 As the table above demonstrates, a number of the notices were subsequently withdrawn because the Trustee considered that Mr Mokhtar had subsequently complied with his obligations. However, the Trustee gave evidence that he continued to file notices of objection because they seemed to be the only way by which he could get Mr Mokhtar to comply with his obligations in the bankruptcy. The Trustee accepted, however, that none of the subsequent notices of objection had, or could have had, any further effect in terms of extending the period of bankruptcy beyond the eight-year statutory maximum of 16 March 2026. As such, the Trustee submitted that "[n]o number of subsequent objections could prejudice Mr Mokhtar by extending his bankruptcy any further" (RS at [13].) 195 By contrast, Mr Mokhtar regarded the number of objections filed against him as a personal attack and, as the above table disclosed, repeatedly sought to challenge them. He lodged at least five additional complaints with AFSA after the 16 December 2021 objection notice. Of these, ASFA declined to review the objections notices of 20 December 2021 and 4 March 2022 finding that insufficient reasons had been provided by Mr Mokhtar to justify a review. ASFA further upheld the Trustee's decision to file the Objection Notice of 28 February 2022, due to the notice complying with requirements in the Bankruptcy Act. In his submissions, the Trustee emphasised the fact that only one objection notice was cancelled by ASFA. 196 By August 2022, Mr Mokhtar had also filed five applications in the AAT with respect to his unsuccessful requests for AFSA to review the Trustee's objection notices. These applications have been held in abeyance pending the outcome of these proceedings by an order made by the AAT on 18 August 2022. 197 On 19 August 2022, AFSA also advised that with the lodging on that date Mr Mokhtar's application to have his bankruptcy annulled in the Federal Court, AFSA considered that it would not be appropriate for the Inspector General to undertake a review of the objections under s 149K of the Bankruptcy Act while the matter was pending before the courts.
5.14.3 The decision on 9 August 2022 to cancel the notice of objection dated 29 April 2022 198 As indicated in the table above, a delegate of the Inspector-General decided to cancel the Trustee's decision to file the notice of objection dated 29 April 2022, which concerned a failure by Mr Mokhtar to provide information (being the ground in s 149D(1)(d)). Specifically, in a letter dated 14 March 2022, the Trustee requested contact details, including residential and business addresses and phone numbers, of Edward and Madeleine Seyfarth. The Trustee further requested information about their occupation and role in the property settlement with Mr Mokhtar's former spouse. 199 On 16 March 2022, Mr Mokhtar provided the Trustee with the email addresses of Edward and Madeleine Seyfarth. On the same day, the Trustee communicated with Edward Seyfarth by email. Nonetheless, the Trustee informed Mr Mokhtar by email on 16 March and 28 April 2022 that strict compliance with his request was required. The Trustee had also apparently been in communication with Edward Seyfarth regarding his role with respect to the property settlements in question. 200 Having regard to that material, on 29 July 2022, the delegate wrote to the Trustee with its preliminary view that the objection notice should be cancelled. In the letter, the delegate noted that in the Trustee's communications with Edward, he could have used the opportunity to seek such information from him directly. However, in his response on 29 July 2022, the Trustee stated that he "did not know what communication with Mr Seyfarth you are referring to in which I could have sought the "information" to which you refer. I am actually surprised at the suggestion." 201 The delegate concluded, in his final decision, that he was satisfied from the material that there is sufficient evidence to support the existence of this ground of objection "in a strict sense". However, Mr Mokhtar had a reasonable excuse for not providing the full contact details of Edward and Madeleine Seyfarth "[g]iven that Edward and Madeleine Seyfarth had requested that you only provide their email addresses, and the Trustee has since been in communication with them regarding their role in the property settlements". Accordingly, the delegate cancelled the notice of objection.
5.15 The garnishee of Mr Mokhtar's salary by the Trustee on 29 June 2022 202 On 29 June 2022, the Trustee finally obtained a garnishee of 20% of Mr Mokhtar's salary. I make further findings with respect to the apparent lack of judgement on the part of the Trustee delaying, until this late stage of the bankruptcy, in seeking to garnishee Mr Mokhtar's salary.
7.1 The Trustee's investigations and objection notices between 16 December 2021 and 16 October 2022
7.1.1 The "red flags" evident from the start of the bankruptcy 209 As I have earlier explained, the Trustee was subject to statutory standards under s 19 of the Bankruptcy Act, including to administer the estate as efficiently as possible by avoiding unnecessary expense, exercising powers and performing functions in a commercially sound way, and acting impartially. As Mr Mokhtar also submitted, the requirements in Div 42 of the IPRB also applied to the Trustee. As earlier explained, these include: (1) making preliminary inquiries and actions to form a view about possible antecedent transactions and undisclosed assets (s 42-30 IPRB); and (2) acting impartially (s 42-10 IPRB); (3) expressing communications objectively and in a professionally courteous tone and manner (s 42-15 IPRB); and (4) as soon as practicable after appointment as trustee, conducting appropriate investigations of the debtor's property and income (s 42-220 IPRB). 210 I agree with the applicant that the necessity and prudence of undertaking investigations, as well as taking steps to protect the assets of the bankrupt's estate, ought to have been especially evident in the circumstances of Mr Mokhtar's bankruptcy. In particular, the Trustee was aware, even prior to his appointment, that Mr Mokhtar's gambling, drinking, and inability to control his spending had led him to the brink of bankruptcy. Furthermore, other obvious "red flags" included: (1) Mr Mokhtar's statement of affairs disclosed only $213.00 in cash, including in his bank accounts; (2) on the Trustee's own evidence, as early as March 2018, he was concerned about what had happened to the money from the sale of the Italian shares and the money from the property settlement with Mr Mokhtar's former spouse, and was suspicious of dealings in property shortly before the bankruptcy; (3) Mr Mokhtar has largely been in arrears with his income contributions since he was issued the first assessment on 14 March 2018 of his compulsory income contributions pursuant to s 139W of the Bankruptcy Act despite being in full-time employment throughout the bankruptcy with a substantial income; (4) on the Trustee's own evidence, he warned Mr Mokhtar at least as early as 3 May 2018 that his bankruptcy would be extended through the filing of a notice of objection, and garnisheed, if he was too far behind in payment of the income contributions; (5) Mr Mokhtar failed to provide the bank valuation of the Strauss Road property to the Trustee, despite a copy being requested by the Trustee as early as 8 March 2018; and (6) Mr Mokhtar provided very few records despite the letter from the Trustee on 14 March 2018 demanding all of Mr Mokhtar's records and repeated requests thereafter by the Trustee including on 3 May and 15 October 2019. 211 Leaving aside the notice of objection filed on 19 January 2021 for outstanding contributions (which were then in the substantial amount of $32,372.71), it was not until December 2021 that notices of objection were filed in support of the Trustee's investigations. Further, and even more surprisingly, it was only in June 2022, and therefore after the first objection notice on 19 January 2021 was filed relating to this non-compliance, that Mr Mokhtar's wages were garnisheed. 212 I accept the bankrupt's submission that I should have regard to these matters in determining whether removal of the Trustee is in the best interests of the bankruptcy. I also agree with the applicant that the failings in the Trustee's judgement, exposed by these aspects of the administration of the bankrupt estate were, with respect, inadequately explained by the Trustee and develop my reasons for so finding shortly. Nor is it apparent how these judgements could be said to have been in the best interests of the bankruptcy.
7.1.2 The 3 May letter 213 For the reasons earlier given, I accept that the Trustee provided the 3 May letter solely to assist Mr Mokhtar in refinancing the Strauss Road property and that there was a valid difference between a sale and refinancing of the property in terms of accounting to the bankrupt estate. I have also accepted Mr Mokhtar's evidence that he genuinely misunderstood the 3 May letter together with the calculator and its accompanying email. As a consequence of this, Mr Mokhtar could not understand why he was not being discharged from bankruptcy when the sale of his share in the Strauss Road property realised almost twice the amount he had been told would suffice to enable his discharge. The way in which Mr Mokhtar understood the letter, together with the calculator, was not, in my view, unreasonable. Further, I consider that the Trustee's categorical refusal in cross-examination to accept that the letter, together with the calculator, might have been understood in this way by Mr Mokhtar, even in the face of AFSA's findings, is indicative of a lack of objectivity on the part of the Trustee.
7.1.3 Why did the Trustee change his approach to administration of the bankruptcy and file multiple objection notices between December 2021 and October 2022? 214 Counsel for the Trustee submitted that the Trustee was first alerted to the fact that something was "untoward" when, on 3 November 2021, he saw the agreement for the sale of the Stauss Road property and the attached lease agreement which showed that Mr Mokhtar was not, in fact, living in the property. In the Trustee's submission, it was this which precipitated his investigations so late into the bankruptcy and the filing of the multiple objection notices. The Trustee therefore submitted that it was simply "happenstance" that the 3 May letter was sent around the same time. As counsel for the Trustee submitted: The 3 May letter is very much not to our mind where the, so to speak, turning point is. That is as complaint made by Mr Mokhtar. What can be made of that complaint and how that impacts on Mr Piscopo's handling of the bankruptcy, we say there is little to no impact, but we will deal with that in submissions. Your Honour, our case - nothing really in our case turns on that 3 May letter. We're simply saying that the objections were all - and again, it's by happenstance that they happened to happen at that time. But we're saying that the investigations which then led from that - from the turning point which was the sale of the property, that's where it started to become clear to Mr Piscopo where there were issues with his bankruptcy. (Emphasis added.) 215 That submission, however, cannot be reconciled with the Trustee's evidence to which I have referred at [210] above. It is also at odds with the Trustee's advice in his updated report to creditors dated 11 November 2021 that "[m]ost of the work has in fact been done" and with correspondence from the Trustee to Mr Mokhtar on 1 December 2021. Specifically, the Trustee wrote advising Mr Mokhtar that: If you want an accurate figure as to how much I required to discharge you from bankruptcy, I can give you that. It is essentially what you owe income contributions. The only reason why historically I gave you a higher figure was because you yourself requested a figure that would clear all the claims of the bankrupt estate against [your cousin], etc. as you claimed that they were stressing you out and you were being required to make the payments on their behalf in any case. Otherwise, the figure would have been lower. As it stands, your income contributions debt is $31,315.15. If you were to pay today you would be required to pay $28,842.73 in view of the fact that there are still approximately 4 months to go in CAP 4. Might I stress that although on payment you would be discharged from bankruptcy, [your cousin], et. would not be absolved of their debts to the bankrupt estate unless their debts were also paid. (Emphasis in the original.) 216 In other words, despite having been alerted to the fact that the Strauss Road property had been rented without the Trustee's permission in early November, nothing in the letter to Mr Mokhtar providing a payout figure for him to be discharged from bankruptcy indicated any intention to conduct further investigations against him. I note that the Trustee was not alerted to the fact that Mr Mokhtar had apparently received rental income until November 2022, when he received information about Mr Mokhtar's tax returns from the ATO. 217 While he also relies upon the bankrupt's conduct with respect to the sale of the Strauss Road property, the Trustee gave a different explanation for the change in his approach to the bankruptcy in the First Trustee Affidavit. The Trustee said that appropriate investigations were undertaken by him from the outset but that Mr Mokhtar's conduct had impeded those investigations. The Trustee claimed Mr Mokhtar had destroyed records and made many false and misleading statements, including in his statement of affairs. In that context, the Trustee sought to explain in his first affidavit why he suddenly started issuing multiple notices of objection to discharge from December 2021 by reference to his initial response to Mr Mokhtar's claims to have mental health issues. Specifically, the Trustee said that: Up to the time I started lodging multiple Notices of Objection to Discharge I had given Mr Mokhtar ample credit for his alleged mental health issues including by not filing Notices of Objection to Discharge. That was despite the fact that Mr Mokhtar failed to give me any evidence of ongoing mental health issues or memory failure despite being requested as noted in paragraphs 32 and 33 above of my affidavit. I did not object to Mr Mokhtar's discharge before I did because I felt constrained by AFSA's mental health policy as set out in paragraph 109 to 111 of my affidavit. However, after Mr Mokhtar's dishonesty in relation to the selling the Strauss Road property without first seeking my permission and my reading of DPP v Luong, I then understood that it was my duty to change my approach. (First Trustee Affidavit at 124; see also the reference to DPP v Luong [2021] VCC 1482 in the Trustee's Concise Response at [33].) 218 As to his first reason, the Trustee gave evidence that "[i]n light of Mr Mokhtar's assertion that he suffered from mental health issues and AFSA's policy in regard to bankrupts with mental health issues I felt it was prudent on my part to be very cautious in dealing with Mr Mokhtar". The evidence of the policy and of the Trustee's understanding of it, however, was scant. The Trustee's evidence was that: at around the time of my appointment as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Mr Mokhtar, AFSA instituted a mental health awareness program. … The policy underpinning the program was confusing for trustees like me as to how to administer a bankrupt estate when a bankrupt repeatedly failed to cooperate, at the same time claiming mental health issues in his or her defence. 219 The Trustee attached a copy of what he described as the relevant webpages from AFSA's website which explained that: The Insolvency Mental Health Awareness Program (IMHAP) is a joint initiative of the Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA), the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), and the Australian Restructuring Insolvency and Turnaround Association (ARITA). IMHAP has a dual focus: understanding the mental health of people accessing bankruptcy and insolvency services and addressing possible mental health implications for professionals providing these services. The program, developed in conjunction with Mental Health First Aid Australia consists of: 1. a 90 minute overview session aimed at senior leaders, managers and registered practitioners.… 2. a blended course (comprising an e-Learning package and face-to-face training) aimed at those insolvency professionals who require a higher level of knowledge. 220 The website also contained hyperlinks through which a person could enrol in the 90 minute overview session and the self-paced interactive e-learning, and stated that "[i]t is AFSA's expectation that all registered insolvency professionals complete this 90 minute overview session before December 2019". The website further stated that face-to-face training sessions would be provided in 2019. 221 The Trustee did not give evidence of what he understood the "policy" to be, although I would infer that it is in broad terms the "dual focus" identified above. Nor did he give evidence that he had in fact undertaken either the 90 minute overview session or the blended course. Presumably, if he had done so, he would have given that evidence. However, even if he did complete one or both of the courses, he does not explain why that left him confused about the policy, in what respects he was confused about the policy, and why he did not take any steps to seek to clarify the policy. 222 As mentioned, the Trustee gave evidence that he became less "cautious" in administering the bankruptcy after reading an article published on 6 October 2021 by AFSA and the sale of the Strauss Road property. The article concerned a Victorian woman who was jailed after pleading guilty to offences under the Bankruptcy Act for disposing of property with the intent to defraud creditors. In the article, AFSA's Acting Deputy Chief Executive, Peter Edwards, is quoted as stating that: The insolvency system is built on integrity and transparency - and those who seek to undermine it must be appropriately disciplined … We know that financial difficulties can be a stressful time for individuals, and we work closely with those experiencing hardship to provide support - however, individuals who deliberately misuse the system must be held accountable. The defendant in these circumstances failed to disclose information about her assets to her bankruptcy trustee. As a result, genuine creditors have lost access to funds that should have been available to help repay the debts they were owed. 223 Once he read that article and the decision in Luong, the Trustee said that "I formed the view that I did not need to be quite so hesitant in dealing with Mr Mokhtar despite AFSA's policy. As a result, I conducted further investigations in 2022." However, the Trustee does not explain how the article addressed his confusion and why it led him to change his approach to the administration of the bankruptcy. Notably, in this regard, while the article referred to stress, it did not purport to address circumstances where the bankrupt suffers from mental health issues. Furthermore, the Trustee was still of the view, at this time, that there was some truth in Mr Mokhtar's claims as to his mental health. Specifically, the Trustee advised the creditors in his updated report dated 11 November 2021 that he had no reason not to believe that there was some truth in Mr Mokhtar's claims that his affairs became disorganised following the breakup of his marriage, which in turn had an adverse impact on his mental health. 224 It follows that I consider the Trustee's evidence as to why he filed the 17 notices of objection within a 10-month period so late in the bankruptcy by reference to confusion about AFSA's policy to be unconvincing. 225 Nor does the Trustee adequately explain the substantial delay in garnisheeing the bankrupt's income. It was common ground that if the income contributions were not paid by the bankrupt, the Trustee had power to garnishee Mr Mokhtar's salary: s 139ZL of the Bankruptcy Act. Yet, the bankrupt's income was not garnisheed until 29 June 2022 - some four and a half years into the bankruptcy and eight months after the AFSA article. I found this aspect of the administration of bankruptcy particularly troubling. It makes no sense, with respect, for the Trustee not to take this step because of a concern for Mr Mokhtar's mental health when the consequences were that the bankruptcy was extended in January 2021 to the statutory maximum as a result of Mr Mokhtar's consistent inability to meet his income contributions. That approach to administration of the bankruptcy could only compound the stress on Mr Mokhtar. At the very least, some explanation was required from the Trustee as to why Mr Mokhtar's income was not garnisheed in January 2021, yet none was forthcoming.
7.1.4 The reasons for the filing of the objection notices between December 2021 and October 2022 226 Bearing in mind the gravity of the allegation, the evidence falls well short of establishing a sufficient basis on which I could infer that the objection notices were filed by the Trustee as some kind of improper response to Mr Mokhtar's complaint against the Trustee to AFSA lodged on 30 November 2021. Ultimately, the basis on which the applicant alleges an improper purpose rises no higher than the allegedly "conspicuous coincidence" of the Trustee's objection notices being filed within days of Mr Mokhtar lodging his complaint with AFSA and their volume and frequency (ASC, [64]). That notwithstanding, it is possible that the pursuit of the complaint by Mr Mokhtar might have contributed to the Trustee's sense of aggrievement and loss of objectivity, but again, this can rise no higher than speculation and therefore I have not taken it into account. 227 The more likely inference is that the filing of the notices of objection were the Trustee's response to the very considerable difficulties and frustration which he was confronting in getting Mr Mokhtar to understand and comply with his obligations as a bankrupt. The evidence also indicates that in some cases, Mr Mokhtar complied with his obligations after the filing of certain objection notices, supporting the Trustee's view, to some extent, that the objection notices may operate as an impetus for Mr Mokhtar to cooperate. 228 That said, however, I regard the sheer number and timing of the objection notices as a further indication of a loss of objectivity by the Trustee. In some cases, objection notices were filed within a day, or a few days, of each other. Two were even filed on the same day. No explanation for why he adopted this approach was given by the Trustee. Nor was there an adequate or reasonable explanation for why some of the notices which related to longstanding issues with Mr Mokhtar's lack of cooperation should not have been filed earlier. It is also clear that, while Mr Mokhtar complied with his obligations following the filing of some of the notices of objection leading to their withdrawal, this flood of objection notices further inflamed tensions with Mr Mokhtar. This was evident from his correspondence with the Trustee and the number of challenges to the notices taken by Mr Mokhtar.
7.2 Has there been an irreparable breakdown in the relationship between the Trustee and Mr Mokhtar? 229 While Mr Mokhtar submits that there has been an irretrievable breakdown in his relationship with the Trustee, the Trustee submits only that "a degree of antagonism" has arisen. The Trustee contends that this occurs in many bankruptcy administrations and that the antagonism between him and Mr Mokhtar has not risen to the level of an irreparable breakdown in the relationship. 230 As to Mr Mokhtar, I accept that there has been a genuine loss of trust in the Trustee and a very strong feeling that he has been aggrieved. There is no doubt that Mr Mokhtar's sense of aggrievement is in part attributable to his repeated failure to grasp or comply with basic aspects of his obligations as a bankrupt. An example is his patently wrong view that the stock options remained his and the money from their sale after the bankruptcy was his to gamble away. The Trustee was plainly correct to pursue those monies and require them to be accounted for to the estate in bankruptcy. 231 However, I also accept Mr Mokhtar's evidence that the turning point in the relationship for him was the 3 May letter and calculator from the Trustee, coupled with his failure to be discharged from bankruptcy following the sale of the Strauss Road property. The Trustee must bear responsibility to this extent for the breakdown in the relationship insofar as his letter led to the misunderstanding, which was not an unreasonable one. Subsequent conduct in the administration of the bankruptcy has compounded the breakdown including the filing of 17 notices of objection. Nor, as counsel for Mr Mokhtar submitted, has the flow of objection notices abated, with a further two objection notices filed since these proceedings were instituted. 232 It is also evident from the Trustee's evidence, submissions and conduct since December 2021 that he had no trust in Mr Mokhtar's truthfulness or his ability to comply with his obligations as a bankrupt. Indeed, the evidence has established that there is substantial justification for those views. What is more relevant, however, is the question of whether the Trustee has lost the objectivity demanded of him as a trustee in bankruptcy. I accept the applicant's submission that the evidence establishes that objectivity has been lost. The impression which the Trustee's evidence conveyed was that he felt betrayed by Mr Mokhtar to whom he believes that he extended an unusual degree of latitude in the first three years of the bankruptcy. As an aspect of this, when challenged on aspects of his conduct of the bankruptcy, the Trustee was defensive and categorical. He did not admit to any possibility of misjudgement or misunderstanding. An illustration of this is his position with respect to the possibility that the calculator, accompanying email, and 3 May letter might have been misunderstood. This is also evidenced by the tone of some of the correspondence from the Trustee to Mr Mokhtar, Mr E Seyfarth and Mr Mokhtar's former spouse, to which I have already referred.
7.3 Is it in the best interests of the bankruptcy to remove the Trustee? 233 As I have earlier explained, there is no requirement for an applicant to demonstrate misconduct or a breach of duty by the Trustee to enliven the Court's power to remove a trustee in bankruptcy under s 90-15. Rather, as, for example, Dixon J observed in Miller v Cameron (1936) 54 CLR 572 at 580 by analogy (with respect to an application to remove a trustee of a trust for the benefit of his creditors): The jurisdiction to remove a trustee is exercised with a view to the interests of the beneficiaries, to the security of the trust property and to an efficient and satisfactory execution of the trusts and a faithful and sound exercise of the powers conferred upon the trustee. In deciding to remove a trustee the Court forms a judgment based upon considerations, possibly large in number, and varied in character, which combine to show that the welfare of the beneficiaries is opposed to his continued occupation of the office. Such a judgment must be largely discretionary. A trustee is not to be removed unless circumstances exist which afford ground upon which the jurisdiction may be exercised. 234 Given my findings as to the Trustee's loss of objectivity, the complete breakdown in the relationship between the Trustee and Mr Mokhtar, and the fact that both parties have contributed to that breakdown, I consider that it is in the best interests of the bankruptcy that the Trustee be removed. 235 Finally, I had concerns about the timetable prepared by the Trustee for the discharge of Mr Mokhtar from bankruptcy, which sets out multiple steps which the Trustee intended to carry out in parallel if he continued as trustee. These involved several sets of proceedings against third parties. However, ultimately, I did not take this into account in reaching my decision on the application because it will be for the new trustee to determine what steps should be taken.
Mokhtar
Piscopo
ler v Cameron (1936) 54 CLR 572 O'Brien v Sheahan [2004] FCA 608 Pioneer Australia Pty Ltd v Bettles as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Quinn [2020] FCA 1788 Quintis Ltd (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) v Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy Number B0507N16FA15350 [2021] FCA 19; 385 ALR 639 Rejfek v McElroy [1965] HCA 46; (1965) 112 CLR 517 Scott (Trustee), Stolyar (Bankrupt) v Stolyar [2022] FCA 691 Shaw v The Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (No 3) [2021] FCA 1569 Sullivan v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCAFC 93; (2014) 226 FCR 555 Trkulja v Morton [2005] FCA 659 Watson v Foxman and Others (1995) 49 NSWLR 315 West v Mead [2003] NSWSC 161
[2021] VCC 1482
[2016] VSCA 141
[2007] QCA 136
[1998] VSCA 27
(1938) 60 CLR 336
(2007) 162 FCR 466
(2021) 397 ALR 24
(2004) 137 FCR 209
(2012) 292 ALR 778
(1936) 54 CLR 572
(1965) 112 CLR 517
(2014) 226 FCR 555
(1995) 49 NSWLR 315
(1992) 37 FCR 201
(1983) 77 FLR 406
(1981) 55 FLR 383
(1977) 30 FLR 6
(2017) 253 FCR 191
(2014) 223 FCR 204
(1982) 149 CLR 155
(1951) 217 ALR 1
(2019) 271 FCR 632
(1990) 170 CLR 573
(1984) 153 CLR 521
(1993) 121 ALR 114
(1999) 163 ALR 744
(2000) 171 ALR 192
(1977) 19 NSWLR 219
(1998) 23 FamLR 75