Re Skov, J. [1994] FCA 915

» AUSTRALIA yk

JUDGMENT No. su? 24, CATCHWORDS

Bankruptcy - review of trustee's decision to obyect to discharge of bankrupt - lack of co- operation by the bankrupt.

RECEIVED ¥

350 NOV 1994

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA PRINCIPAL REGISTRY

No. QB1030 of 1989

Kiefel J:Brisbane. 21 November 1994

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Kiefel J DATE OF ORDER: 21 November 1994 WHERE MADE: Brisbane

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1, The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant bankrupt pay the respondent trustee's costs of and incidental to the whole of the application, including the hearings with respect to each

of the orders sought in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the application.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 124 of the Bankruptcy

Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. 0B1030 of 1989

BANKRUPTCY DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND GENERAL DIVISION RE: JORGEN SKOV Applicant EX PARTE: THE ABOVENAMED CORAM: Kiefel J

DATE: 21 November 1994 PLACE: Brisbane

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The bankrupt in this matter seeks a review of the Trustee's decision to lodge an objection to the bankrupt's discharge. That objection was dated 10 October 1991. The question seems to be whether the Trustee's decision is, on acceptable material, shown to be unreasonable. The bases for the Trustee's decision (putting aside one issue relating to information provided as to the bankrupt's wife's business which, I think, the Trustee has conceded can be taken no further), are generally to be found in the Jack of

co-operation by the bankrupt and in his rendering a level of assistance being substantially

less than is required by the Act.

The maternal shows that there was delay from the outset in the provision of his statement of affairs and which resulted in a delay overall of some three months in the admunistration of the estate.**This explained in part by the personal circumstances of the bankrupt and what is said to be a lack of knowledge, although an inference which I thought was open from the Trustee's affidavit was that there was a distinct level of disinterest in performing the bankrupt's obligations. The bankrupt's creditors were then not fully disclosed by him and this is said to be explained by the bankrupt's belief that some creditors were not those of him personally, but those of his company, and that he had overlooked some personal guarantees. The result, however, was that creditors of some magnitude (nearly $30,000.00) were not taken into account, almost one half of the total amount of creditors, and the Trustee was required to contact all known creditors to obtain a true position. Then the bankrupt appears to have understated his income by approximately one half, although he explains that this was only an approximation of his income since he had not then lodged his return. It does, however, require this court to accept that he had no real idea of his income, such that his estimate was in error by