Federal Court of Australia
SUDGMENT No. S47 SS
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. VG310 of 1387
GENERAL DIVISTON )
ROYAL AUSTRALIA INVESTMENTS PTY. LTD.
Applicant
AND: THE COMMISS TONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Respondent
ORAM: Jenkinson J.
a
DA
i
11 February, 19988
|
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application for directions in an income tax appeal.
The respondent has filed and served on the applicant a notice for discovery. The notice goes beyond the form prescribed by the rules for such a notice, in that particular classes of documents are specified in the notice as among those of which discovery is sought. Counsel for the applicant did not, on the
directions hearing which was held after the notice had been
served, criticise that specification as otiose or as comprehending documents which were not relevant to an issue and therefore not discoverable. He did seek an order, pursuant to 0.15 R.3, that discovery by the applicant be not required. His submission was that when the respondent was engaged in making the assessment, and
when he was considering the applicant's objection against the
2.
assessment, which forms the subject of the appeal he had available to him in ss. 262A, 263 and 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, adequate means of obtaining knowledge af all the documents which might be relevant to a determination of the questions which will be in issue in the appeal. It was, in the submission of counsel, inappropriate and oppressive of the taxpayer that an administrator armed with such powers should have, without special
cause, a right of discovery as well.
In my opinion the considerations advanced on the applicant's behalf do not Justify denial of discovery in accordance with the Court's Rules. Whatever may, or should, have happened before the decision of the respondent which is the subject of the appeal was made, the parties are now litigants in a proceeding in the Court's original jurisdiction. Discovery is a means of ensuring effective presentation of the case for each party, and also, as Menzies J. observed in L'Estrange v. Federal
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