Waterhouse, R.W. v Commissioner of Taxation [1986] FCA 417

IN_ THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

No. G244 of 1986

GENERAL DIVISION

) ) ) } }

JUDGE:

DATE OF ORDER: WHERE MADE:

BETWEEN :

ROBEPT WILLIAM WATERHOUSE Applicant

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION, PARRAMATTA,

OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

FOX J.

16 SEPTEMBER 1986 SYDNEY.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.

Note:

The applicant's motion dacred 27 Aucust 1986 he

dismissed. of the motion.

The applicant pay the respondent's costs

The applicant's oral application for an extension of time to file Aan application for order of an order of review be dismissed.

The application for an order of review dated 11 Tine 19Bs be dismissed.

The applicant pay the respondent's costs of applications (2) and «4) the costs to include the respondent s abiection ta competency dated 2 Julv 1986

Settlement and entrv of orders 15 dealt "ith in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

LIMITED DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA }

) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT PEGISTPY ' ) GENERAL DIVTSTON ,

No. G243 of 1986 BETWEEN: WILLIAM STANLEY WATERHOUSE Applicant AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF

TAXATION, PARRAMATTA , OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent No. G244 of 1986 BETWEEN: ROBERT WILLIAM WATERHOUSE Applicant AND: THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION, PARRAMATTA, OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF ANSTRALIA

Respondent

CORAM: FOX J,

DATE : 16 AEFTEMBER 19286

REASONS FOP TMGMENT 'EZ TEMPOPE:

ooh

Robert William Waterhouse and William Stanlev Waterhouse have each made two applications which are before me. The material relating to the situation of the two persons 15 identical. It is only necessarv to discuss one in order to dispose of both. So far as necessary T will refer to the

Material in the case of Robert William Waterhouse.

The first applications were to extend the time in which