Rowe, Barbara & Anor v. Commissioner of Taxation [1981] FCA 173

caw eee ae

EX TEMPORE

IN THE PEDERAL COURT

OF AUSTRALIA

GENERAL DIVISION

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

No. G29 of 1981 No. G30 of 1981

wee

BETWEEN: BARBARA ROWE Applicant

AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

BETWEEN: HAROT.D GRAHAM ROWE

Applicant

AND: THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

; 13 October 1981

I do not think either reservation of reasons. In Lombardo to which Mr Byrne, on me, which is reported

Review 550, Mr Justic

KEELY J.

these applications for leave call for

my decision or for any exhaustive

v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation

behalf of the applicants, has referred in (1979) 9 Australian Taxation e Toohey pointed out that s.196 of

ment Act "does not define the circumstances

the Income Tax Assess

in which leave may be criteria to be applie

by Mr Justice Lockhar

given, nor does it prescribe any a". That observation has been followed

t in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v.

wen ae tars

wr atee es mt a

an Peers

he athe we eine at eam,

ee ee a

em rent ee aon eee a el a ae sata tin tin RS ae ee

alee ee ae

Nixon (1979) 37 F.L.R. 135 - see also Mr Justice Northrop in

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Forsyth (1979) 37 F.L.R. 430

to which Mr Byrne has just referred me.

I agree with Mr Justice Toohey that it 1s not necessary in order to obtain leave, as distinct from sepcial leave under s.196(5) (b), for an applicant for leave to show that there is "a question of general or public importance or special circumstances". No doubt, if he is able to show that an applicant has so much the stronger case, but I agree that it is not necessary to do so in order to obtain leave. I also

agree with Mr Justice Toohey in Lombardo's case (supra) that,

in considering an application for leave, the court should direct its attention "to the existence of an arguable question, the implications of that question for the case in hand and,