Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
La Mancha Africa S.A.R.L. v Commissioner of Taxation [2021] FCA 1564 File number(s): VID 778 of 2020
Judgment of: DAVIES J
Date of judgment: 15 December 2021
Catchwords: TAXATION – Harman undertaking – where the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) is a party to a proceeding – where documents produced under subpoena in the proceeding by a third party – whether the Harman undertaking constrains the Commissioner's use of the subpoenaed documents without a release from the Court – Harman undertaking yields to inconsistent legal obligations – Harman obligation does not abrogate any duty or compulsion imposed by law or statute– Harman undertaking does not preclude the Commissioner from using subpoenaed documents in the lawful exercise of his powers and functions
Legislation: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 128A Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s 166 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 64 Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) sch 1 s 353-10
Cases cited: Advanced Holdings Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2020] FCAFC 157; (2020) 281 FCR 149 Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Amcor Ltd [2008] FCA 398; (2008) ATPR 42-224 Denlay v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2011] FCAFC 412; (2011) 193 FCR 412 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Karas [2012] VSC 143 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Rennie Produce (Aust) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] FCAFC 38; (2018) 260 FCR 272 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Shi [2021] HCA 22; (2021) 392 ALR 1 Esso Australia Resources Limited v Plowman [1995] HCA 19; (1995) 183 CLR 10 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Donoghue [2015] FCAFC 183; (2018) 237 FCR 316 Gould v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCAFC 1; (2017) 343 ALR 275 Griffiths & Beerens Pty Ltd v Duggan (No 2) [2008] VSC 230 Harman v Secretary of State for Home Department [1983] 1 AC 280 Hearne v Street [2008] HCA 36; (2008) 235 CLR 125 Law Institute of Victoria Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2009] VSC 55; (2009) 224 FLR 37 Macquarie Bank Limited v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2013] FCAFC 119 Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd [1977] QB 881
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate