Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Connell [2024] NSWDC 530

District Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Connell [2024] NSWDC 530 Hearing dates: 23 October 2024 Date of orders: 4 November 2024 Decision date: 04 November 2024 Jurisdiction: Civil Before: Andronos SC DCJ Decision: (1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $850,992.03. (2) The defendant is to pay the costs of the plaintiff assessed on the ordinary basis. Catchwords: TAXES AND DUTIES — Administration — Collection and recovery — Directors and former directors Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth), s 6, s 33, s 39 Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), Sch 1, s 16-70, s 16-75, s 16-150, s 269-10, s 269-15, s 269-20, s 269-25, s 269-30, s 350-10, s 350-12, s 350-20 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (plaintiff) Robert Naughton Connell (defendant) Representation: Solicitors: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers (plaintiff) File Number(s): 2023/00260325 Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT 1. In these proceedings, the plaintiff, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (the DCT), seeks judgment against Robert Naughton Connell, the defendant, in respect of tax-related liabilities. The tax was primarily payable by Semantic Software Asia Pacific Ltd (SSAPL), a company of which the defendant was a director, and which has since gone into liquidation. Pursuant to s 269-20 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) (the TAA), the DCT says that the defendant has become liable to pay a sum equal to that liability as a penalty. The sum claimed is now $850,992.03. 2. The defendant had participated in the proceedings and filed a defence on 2 November 2023. His former solicitor filed a notice of ceasing to act on 15 October 2024. An affidavit affirmed by Salmaan Shah, one of the plaintiff's solicitors, on 22 October 2024 satisfied me that he had had a conversation with the defendant on 17 October 2024 and that an email had been sent to an email address associated with the defendant that day, confirming that the defendant was aware of the hearing and that he did not intend to defend the proceedings. On the basis of that conversation and email, I am satisfied that the defendant was aware of the hearing date, but nevertheless did not attend to defend the proceedings. For more abundant caution, the defendant was called outside court but did not appear. The hearing therefore proceeded ex parte. 3. The DCT relied on the affidavits of Namitesh Prasad, Venus Shakuntala Lakshman and Salmaaan Shah. The DCT also relied on certificates under s 350-10(3) of Sch 1 to the TAA dated 15 March 2024, 15 March 2024 and 18 October 2024. 4. A certificate under s 350-10(3) is a statement or averment about a matter in the plaintiff's complaint and stands as prima facie evidence of the matter: s 350-20(1) of Sch 1 to the TAA. Where a certificate specifies that an amount is payable to the Commissioner under a taxation law, it is prima facie evidence that the amount is payable from that time and that the particulars are correct: ss 350-10(3) and 350-12 of Sch 1 to the TAA.