Federal Court of Australia
CATCHWORDS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - application for an order of review - decision to apply for summary judgment - whether decision by or on behalf of respondent ~ whether routine decision without respect to the facts of the case - whether arrangement between applicant and respond=nt for payment of tax.
EVIDENCE = whether respondent's notes of telephone conversations with agent of applicant admissible as business records ~ whether inadmissible because made or obtained for the purpose of or in contemplation of judicial or administrative proceedings.
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 S.5 Evidence Act ss. 7A, 7B, 7C.
BARRY STANLEY JOHN O'KEEFE v. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION No. G20. of 1986
Jackson J.
Jackson J.
16th December 1986 Sydney
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY No. G202 of 1986
ww
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN : BARRY STANLEY JOHN O'KEEFE Applicant AND: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OF TAXATION
Respondent
CORAM: JACKSON J. DATE: 16th December 1986 PLACE: Sydney
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
These are proceedings in which the applicant seeks an order of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 in respect of the decision of the respondent to apply for summary judgment against the applicant in proceedings numbered 17465 of 1985 in the Supreme Court of New
South Wales.
In that action the respondent claims an amount of
$214,890.26 being income tax and additional tax payable in accordance with notices of assessment issued on 14th September
1184 in respect of the years ended 30th June 1980, 30th June
1981 and 30th June 1982. The amount of the claim 1s the balance after taking into account two payments totalling $197,000.00 which were made earlier this year, and to which I
shall return.
It is convenient, before turning to the arguments on behalf of the applicant, to deal first with an argument which was advanced on behalf of the respondent, namely that there was no relevant "decision" by or on behalf of the respondent. The argument was not that the decision to apply for summary judgment was not a decision under an enactment but rather that the decision had not been made by the respondent but by
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate