Commissioner of Taxation v Cameron

[2013] QDC 97

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Commissioner of Taxation v Cameron  [2013] QDC 97

PARTIES:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

(Plaintiff)

v

ROSS IAN CAMERON
(Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

2094/12

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

26/04/2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARD AT: 

26/04/2013

JUDGE:

Samios DCJ

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the sum of $230,531.72
2. The defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs in the sum of 4,539.82.

CATCHWORDS

Practice - Summary judgment sought by the plaintiff- whether the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending all or part of the claim- whether there is no need for a trial of the claim or part of the claim- summary judgment should be given in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant

COUNSEL:

Ms Cameron (Sol) for the Plaintiff.

Mr Hall for the Defendant.

SOLICITORS:

ATO Legal Services Branch for the Plaintiff.

Nathan Lawyers for the Defendant.

1. In this matter, I refuse the application by the defendant to adjourn the application for summary judgment to the 30^th of May 2013.  It seems to me that even though the respondent says there may be benefits for some creditors, the plaintiff appears prima facie to be entitled to judgment this morning.  It seems that the applicant – the respondent has had notice of the claim since about the middle of last year and filed a notice of intention to defend in September last year.  That notice of intention to defend did not raise any matter of defence against the plaintiff’s claim, nor does the respondent today in an affidavit filed – an affidavit by him filed by leave – raise any triable issues.  The matter is one which seeks to place the best position, not withstanding the prima facie rights of the plaintiff to judgment.  I am not persuaded that it is right, in all the circumstances, to adjourn this matter, notwithstanding the effects it is said that judgment would have upon the respondent.  Those are effects that I do not think can avoid the plaintiff’s entitlement to judgment this morning.

1. Yes.  I’m satisfied on the material that has been put before me that the defendant has no real prospect of successfully defending all or part of the plaintiff’s claim and there is no need for a trial of the claim or part of the claim.  The end result is that I accept the submissions of the plaintiff and am satisfied that summary judgment should be given in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant.  Therefore there will be judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $235,071.54 and in addition I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs in the sum of $4,539.82.

1. The judgment sum is $230,531.72 and I order the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of $4,539.82.