VAI v Forgie [2003] FCA 87

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VAI v Forgie [2003] FCA 87 VAI v DEPUTY PRESIDENT FORGIE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL and THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA V 741 OF 2002 NORTH J 18 FEBRUARY 2003 MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 741 OF 2002

BETWEEN: VAI

APPLICANT

AND: DEPUTY PRESIDENT FORGIE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE OF ORDER: 18 FEBRUARY 2003

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicant is to pay the respondents' costs of the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 741 OF 2002

BETWEEN: VAI

APPLICANT

AND: DEPUTY PRESIDENT FORGIE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

FIRST RESPONDENT

THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: NORTH J

DATE: 18 FEBRUARY 2003

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 23 September 2002, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) constituted by Deputy President Forgie, who is the first respondent in these proceedings, refused an application by the applicant for further and better particulars of allegations of evasion and/or fraud made against him by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia (the Commissioner). 2 The application presently before the Court, which was filed on 24 October 2002, seeks orders under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The effect of the orders sought would be to restrain the Tribunal from proceeding with the hearing until the Commissioner provides the applicant with the particulars sought. 3 The applicant requested the Tribunal that the proceeding be in private. As a result, pursuant to s 14ZZE of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (Taxation Administration Act), he was entitled to have the hearing in private. In order to give practical effect to that statutory entitlement before the Tribunal, on 9 December 2002, I ordered that the publication of the name of the applicant and of any material tending to identify the applicant be restricted to members and staff of the Court, the parties and their representatives and the staff of any transcript provider. This explains why the applicant is referred to in these reasons as VAI, and why certain otherwise identifying facts have been referred to in a way which does not identify the applicant. 4 The first respondent did not take part in the hearing, but entered a submitting appearance.