Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Miraki [2022] FCAFC 96

Federal Court of Australia

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Miraki [2022] FCAFC 96 Appeal from: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Miraki (Application to Amend) [2021] FCA 1362 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Miraki (Freezing Orders) [2021] FCA 1367

File number: NSD 1224 of 2021

Judgment of: PERRAM, MOSHINSKY AND HESPE JJ

Date of judgment: 20 May 2022

Date of publication of reasons: 1 June 2022

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal – where the primary judge made an interlocutory order requiring the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation to lodge a "Request" that the Registrar-General remove notifications of certain freezing orders – whether the decision of the primary judge was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant its reconsideration on appeal – whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong – whether the case raised an issue of principle of public importance – held: application for leave to appeal dismissed

Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011, rr 7.32, 7.33, 7.35, 26.01 Real Property Act 1900 (NSW), ss 3, 31B, 32, 121, 122

Cases cited: ACE Insurance Ltd v Trifunovski (2012) 291 ALR 46 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v P Dawson Nominees Pty Ltd (2008) 169 FCR 227 Decor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397 DOQ17 v Australian Financial Security Authority (No 3) [2019] FCA 1488 Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd v Australian Competition Tribunal (2012) 246 CLR 379 Smethurst v Commissioner of Police (2020) 376 ALR 575