Commissioner of Taxation of the State of Western Australia & Ors v Briggs, P. [1986] FCA 354

ON = CA * -

CATCHWORDS

scoala

atte

Income taxation =- challenge to assessments - application to_ dismiss

proceedings for want of reasonable cause ~ whether challenge to

assessments precluded by s. 177 Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 or by i operation of doctrine of res judicata - whether a seriously arguable

case. 4.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATICN FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA,

' R.A. GILL, GEOFFREY THOMAS WIGGINS and PETER ROBERT KNOX PEACOCK

Ex Parte P. BRIGGS

_——

| G162 of 1986

a

aren

LOCKHART J.

er

SYDNEY

4 JULY 1986

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA } )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY } No. G162 of 1986 ) GENERAL DIVISION } .

APPLICATION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION AGAINST

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

R-A. GILL Second Respondent

GEOFFREY THOMAS WIGGINS Third Respondent

PETER ROBERT KNOX PRACOCK Fourth Respondent

Ex Parte P. BRIGGS

Prosecutor MINUTE OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: LOCKHART J. DATE OF ORDER: 4 JULY 1986 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY The Court orders that: 1. The respondents' notice of motion dated 11 June 1986 be

dismissed. ——- 2. The prosecutor's costs of the notice of motion be the

prosecutor's costs in the proceedings.

NOTE: Settlement and entry oforders is dealt with in order 36 of

the Federal Court Rules.

a wey eee

eee greene

os

.

seer

caadinaaiianatihed ed

IN THD FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )} No. G162 of 1986 ) GENERAL DIVISION ) APPLICATION FOR WRITS OF

: MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION AGAINST

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

FOR THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

First Respondent

R.A. GILL Second Respondent

GEOFFREY THOMAS WIGGINS Third Respondent

PETER ROBERT KNOX PEACOCK Fourth Respondent

Ex Parte P. BRIGGS Prosecutor

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

This 1S a motion pursuant to 0. 20 R. 2 of this Court's Rules for an order that the proceeding be stayed or dismissed generally on the basis that no reasonable cause of action is dasclosed, or the proceeding 1s frivolous or vexatious, or the proceeding is an abuse of the Court's process. The proceedings were instituted pursuant to s. 39B of the Judaciary Act 1903 by Peter Briggs as prosecutor, to whom I