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 will be dismissed. However, having regard to the fact that there was some ambiguity and the position with respect to the function of para.8 in the pleading was not clear until enunciated by counsel for the applicant, the appropriate costs order would simply be that each party bear its own costs on the motion. I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice French. Ke Associate: Dotevel~ key Date: 204 Ayn (488 ee ee me wa enn oe we rc rere 3. Counsel for the Applicant: Mr J.C. Vaughan Solicitors for the Applicant: Messrs. Freehill Hollingdale & Page Counsel for the Respondent: Mr G. Windsor Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 29 April 1988 Date of Judgment: 29 April 1988 ee Le