Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Ball [2003] FCA 1481

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Ball [2003] FCA 1481 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION v PATRICIA MARION BALL (IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA MARION BALL) N 7299 of 2002

HELY J 1 DECEMBER 2003 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 7299 OF 2002

BETWEEN: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

APPLICANT

AND: PATRICIA MARION BALL (IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA MARION BALL)

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HELY J

DATE OF ORDER: 1 DECEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The motion is dismissed with costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 7299 OF 2002

BETWEEN: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

APPLICANT

AND: PATRICIA MARION BALL (IN THE MATTER OF PATRICIA MARION BALL)

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HELY J

DATE: 1 DECEMBER 2003

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 In matter no N 7299 of 2002 a notice of motion has been filed apparently by both Mr and Mrs Ball, the intended effect of which appears to be to seek an extension of time within which Mrs Ball might appeal from the sequestration order made by a Registrar of this Court on 20 December 2002. The notice of motion does not specify a hearing date, but bears the notation, date and time to be advised by the registry. The form of notice of motion appears to indicate that it was filed by Maxwell Thomas Ball, Mrs Ball's husband, although as I have said, it appears to bear the signature of both. It includes a notation that the fax number of the person filing the motion is 676 15124. 2 On 27 November 2003 a letter was sent by the Court to Mrs Ball at 48 Evans Street, Westdale, (that being the address given in the application) notifying her that the notice of motion has been listed for hearing at 2.15 pm on Monday 1 December 2003 before me. The letter or the copy of the letter included in the Court file bears a notation that it was faxed on 27 November 2003. There is no appearance by Mrs Ball nor by any person on her behalf. 3 There is nothing in the papers filed which indicates any explanation for the delay in seeking to appeal from the sequestration order made on 20 December 2002, nor is there anything in the papers which indicates any viable ground of appeal from that order. Given the non-appearance of Mrs Ball the appropriate order is to dismiss the motion with costs. I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely.