Gazal v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2024] NSWSC 1

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gazal v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2024] NSWSC 1 Hearing dates: 2 & 3 January 2024 Date of orders: 5 January 2024 Decision date: 08 January 2024 Jurisdiction: Equity - Duty List Before: Slattery J Decision: Plaintiff's Amended Summons dated 1 January 2024 is dismissed. Order the Plaintiff to pay the Defendant's costs of the proceedings. Liberty to apply in chambers for a specified gross sum instead of assessed costs granted to the defendant. Catchwords: TAXES AND DUTIES – review – whether departure prohibition order made under Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), s 14S should be set aside pursuant to Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), s 14V – whether the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation had a bona fide belief and reasonable grounds to believe it was desirable to prohibit the plaintiff from departing Australia to travel to Slovenia for urgent medical treatment – where plaintiff is subject to a tax liability of $18 million under a Deed of Settlement executed by the plaintiff and the Commissioner – where plaintiff has arguably contravened freezing orders of this Court not to diminish the value of assets subject to tax recovery proceedings – where plaintiff has previously been imprisoned for financial crimes – where plaintiff frequently travels overseas and has previously transferred funds overseas. CIVIL PROCEDURE – discontinuance of proceedings – whether the Court should grant application during final submissions for leave to file a notice of discontinuance pursuant to Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 12.1 – where the Court has granted an early final hearing in the vacation list – where the defendant has gained forensic advantages in the hearing – where application made at the conclusion of the hearing. COSTS - costs assessment – specified gross sum order instead of assessed costs – Civil Procedure Act 2005 s98(4)(c) – order for costs made against an unsuccessful plaintiff – where the plaintiff has few assets in his own name and an assessment of costs would cause unnecessary aggravation expense to the defendant – consideration of making a specified gross sum order instead of assessed costs. Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005, Part 6, ss 91, 98(4)(c) Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), ss 14R, 14S, 14U, 14V, 14X Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, rr 12.1(1), 12.3, 42.19 Cases Cited: Bakri v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 20 Covell Mathews v French Walls Limited (1977) 1 WLR 876 Dalco v FCT (1987) ATR 443 Edelsten v FCT (1989) 85 ALR 226 Fordyce v Fordham (2006) 67 NSWLR 497 Harrison v Schipp (2002) 54 NSWLR 738; [2002] NSWCA 213 Newmont Pty Ltd v Lavington Nickel NL (No.2) (1981) 1 NSWLR 221 Pattenden v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1590 Poletti v Commissioner of Taxation (1994) 52 FCR 154 Skase v FCT (1991) 32 FCR 206 Thai v DCT (1994) 123 ALR 570 Troughton v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2008) 166 FCR 9 Visy Board Pty Ltd v Attorney General (Cth) (1984) 2 FCR 113 Category: Consequential orders Parties: Plaintiff: Nahi Nasri Gazal Defendant: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation Representation: Counsel: Plaintiff: M. Bateman Defendant: S. Scott