Lombardo, M. v Commissioner of Taxation [1988] FCA 442

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

BETWEEN:

vuDGMENT No. 4407.28 _.

Nos. WAG 2129-2131 of 1987

MICHELE LOMBARDO Applicant

and

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondent

Nos. WAG 2132 and 2133 of 1987

LOMBARDO MARINE PTY LTD Applicant

and

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondent

MINUTE OF ORDER

yy 7s JUDGE MAKING ORDER: FRENCH J. ag aan aS oY PAN Cn DATE OF ORDER: 29 APRIL 1988 [ier RECs \ KR ORO ye WHERE MADE: PERTH [7 2a au "ED; rtp. PEL ay Vy aa nd Th Kees Coun. ey ang! OF THE COURT ORDERS THAT: \ bbfeieee . Sins SA \ oovy ics 1. The respondent's motion dated 31 March 1988 is dismissed. 2. Each party is to bear its own costs on the motion.

Note: Settlement and

entry of orders is dealt with in

Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Se ee ee

ce nee ee eee are

ween nee

IN THE FEDERAL OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:

BETWEEN:

CORAM: FRENCH

COURT

ad

Nos. WAG 2129-2131 of 1987

MICHELE LOMBARDO Applicant

and

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondent

Nos. WAG 2132 and 2133 of 1987

LOMBARDO MARINE PTY LTD Applicant

and

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

J.

29 April 1988

I am the point that applicant has service of the

sub-s.18(1) of

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

of the view that although there are ambiguities, is being made, under para. 8, as counsel for the indicated, is directed to the effectiveness of assessment as service on the company pursuant to

the Taxation (Unpaid Companies) Tax Act.

In the circumstances, albeit that it is not made crystal

clear by the way in which para.8 is drawn, I do not think it is

appropriate to

strike the paragraph out, nor do I propose at this

2.

stage to direct that the applicant bring in an amendment. I think that is something that can be done at or about the time of the hearing. The point has been made clear today; the respondent is aware that para.8 is directed to the question of service. Whether such an issue can properly be raised under the rubric of service is something on which I do not propose to make any definitive ruling now and, of course, it is open to argument at the hearing that that issue does not ultimately affect the question of service. But I donot think that the issue is so clearly concluded by the argument that I have heard today, that I should exercise any summary power that I might have under 0O.52A or otherwise under the implied incidental power of the Court, to strike out the paragraph concerned. For those reasons the motion