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 Commissioner of Taxation (1973) 73 A.T.C. 4061, a means of avoiding the delay and inconvenience which is likely to attend a hearing at which particular relevant documents are seen by one party for the first time. *I decline to give the direction sought by counsel for the applicant. I certify that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Jenkinson. 4 Associate Dated: 11 February, 1988 Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. J.W. de Wijn Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. G.T. Pagone Solicitor for the Applicant John F. Harvey Solicitor for the Respondent Australian Government Solicitor 14 December, 1987 Date of Hearing