Mathews, Russell Gordon Haig v McCarthy, J M, Deputy Commisioner of Taxation [1996] FCA 841

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. QG 59 of 1996 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS Applicant AND: J M McCARTHY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondent MINUTES OF ORDERS JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Drummond J DATE OF ORDER: 29 August 1996 WHERE MADE: Brisbane THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The proceedings be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the proceedings. NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA No. QG 59 of 1996 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: RUSSELL GORDON HAIG MATHEWS Applicant AND: J M McCARTHY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondent CORAM: Drummond J DATE: 29 August 1996 PLACE: Brisbane REASONS FOR JUDGMENT I have before me a notice of motion by the respondent in the present proceedings, which notice of motion was filed on 10 July 1996. It seeks orders terminating summarily the proceedings, as well as other relief, if the proceedings are to continue. Mr Mathews, the applicant in the originating proceedings and respondent to the motion, is legally unrepresented but has appeared at all times to make submissions to the Court. On 12 July, I gave directions for the hearing of the respondent's motion to ensure that Mr Mathews would know, well before today, precisely the grounds upon which the respondent would be relying in argument to support its claim for the summary termination of the proceedings, and to ensure that Mr Mathews would know precisely all the evidence upon which the respondent would also rely in support of that attack on his action. In accordance with those directions, the respondent has filed its evidence, the last such affidavit being filed and served on 31 July 1996, and the respondent, in compliance with the directions, has also filed and served a detailed written outline of submissions, again on 31 July 1996. Mr Mathews has had a very full opportunity to consider the evidence and the arguments relied on today by the respondent to justify the summary termination of his action. The directions I gave on 12 July also included a direction to Mr Mathews in his presence that he, if he wished to rely on any evidentiary material in answer to the respondent's material, should file and serve that material by 23 August. Notwithstanding the various issues raised by the respondent in its material and in its outline of submissions, Mr Mathews has elected not to file any material. He makes submissions from the bar table that in the last week or so he has had dental problems which have caused him considerable distress and explains his failure to do what he says he would otherwise have done by filing answering material, or at least submissions by way of argument. But it is plain that Mr Mathews has had the fullest opportunity to prepare to deal with the respondent's challenge and I therefore propose to deal with that challenge on the evidence before me.