Naismith v Mcgovern [1953] HCA 59

Dist Moore vJack Fons

Brabham

Holdings Pry Securities Poy td Lidy DCT Si SPAMS FERN

Appl Thansy Hon Biet., Frdrocarbon

pe Pate

RSWER Sy Product BRISBANE, Aug. 6;

SypNey, Sept. 11.

Williams, Webb, Kitto and 'Taylor JJ.

Dist Appl Cons Di Cons Cor Di API ist Appl ns Aeicaleck Kepeattie Bony fenton Teen) ae ae Herisly Hea Caeter" een, searitetie' Bick ss B6 iSWLAR 204 ROWER I 122 Cons Appl a Silebon fulton V Sirrell v Aust IGH OOTTIRDT FCT mY Li E 2 2.0 REMINOSY? blione 'pol vein) (1888. 'ommission 0 Pei Gons GROTRCR Mere Sominission 1 Maguey Busiiess & uivon, Cons Consumer Ae ITY 139 Chinese Afay282) Bi 4 ifgal Ch; FLR'S6 [HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA. NAISMITH : 5 ' é 2 : APPELLANT ; DEFENDANT, AND McGOVERN.. A d A ' : é RESPONDENT. PLAINTIFF,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Income Tax (Cth.)—Prosecution—Recovery of pecuniary penalty—Right of defendant to discovery—Usual practice and procedure in civil cases—Suit as between subject and subject—Income Tax and Social Services Contribution

ment Act 1936-1951 (No. 27 of 1936—No. 44 of 1951), ss. i

iary Act 1903-1950 (No. 6 of 1903—No. 80 of 1950), s. 64

'The defendant in an action instituted in accordance with the civil procedure of the High Court by the Commissioner of Taxation pursuant to Pt. VII.

of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act 1936-1951 joner.

is entitled to an order for discovery of documents against the commis: Section 64 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1950 applies to such an action. It is no answer to an application by one party to proceedings for an order

for discovery that that party is for some reason immune from such an order.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Matthews J.) reversed.

Apprat from the Supreme Court of Queensland.

'An action was commenced in the High Court by the Commis- sioner of Taxation, Patrick Silvester McGovern, under Pt. VII. of the Income Tax and Social Services Contribution Assessment Act 1936-1951, against Herbert Arthur James Naismith as defendant for declarations that the defendant had been guilty of an offence under s. 230 (1) of the said Act in knowingly and wilfully under- stating his income in his return for the year ended 30th June 1951 and further or alternatively under s. 227 (1) of the said Act in making and delivering a return, namely the said return, false in certain particulars, and for an order for the payment of penalties in respect of the alleged offences.