Commissioner of Taxation v Grimaldi (No. 6)

[2009] FCA 766

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Commissioner of Taxation v Grimaldi (No. 6) [2009] FCA 766

COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION v PHILLIP GRIMALDI, GARRY BONACCORSO, IFTC BROKING SERVICES LTD and MGG CAPITAL PTY LIMITED AS TRUSTEE FOR WEBTEL MANAGEMENT SUPER FUND

NSD 407 of 2009

GRAHAM J
13 JULY 2009
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 407 of 2009

BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Applicant

AND:

PHILLIP GRIMALDI
First Respondent

GARRY BONACCORSO
Second Respondent

IFTC BROKING SERVICES LTD
Third Respondent

MGG CAPITAL PTY LIMITED AS TRUSTEE FOR WEBTEL MANAGEMENT SUPER FUND
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

GRAHAM J

DATE OF ORDER:

13 JULY 2009

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

UPON THE APPLICANT BY HIS COUNSEL GIVING TO THE COURT THE UNDERTAKINGS IN SCHEDULE A TO THE ORDERS OF THE COURT MADE ON 19 MAY 2009, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The orders made on 19 May 2009 against the second respondent, in accordance with “Annexure X” which in paragraph 1 were expressed to have effect subject to paragraph 9, up to and including the time of final judgment in these proceedings, be extended, until further order, subject to a grant of liberty to either party to apply on 3 days’ notice.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 407 of 2009

BETWEEN: COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Applicant

AND:

PHILLIP GRIMALDI
First Respondent

GARRY BONACCORSO
Second Respondent

IFTC BROKING SERVICES LTD
Third Respondent

MGG CAPITAL PTY LIMITED AS TRUSTEE FOR WEBTEL MANAGEMENT SUPER FUND
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

GRAHAM J

DATE:

13 JULY 2009

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Applications for stays of execution have been made by each of the first and second respondents in respect of the judgments given earlier today for monetary amounts to be paid by the first and second respondents to the applicant.  Before I deal with those applications, I have been reminded that prayer for relief 7 of the applicant’s Notice of Motion filed 24 June 2009 also seeks an extension of the freezing order which was made by consent against the second respondent on 19 May 2009.  Senior Counsel for the second respondent indicates that he does not want to be heard in opposition to an order extending the freezing order made on 19 May.  Since the order was made, the relevant amount has become the judgment amount, namely $3,552,577.81. 

2. It would seem to me appropriate that if there is to be an extension of the freezing order, that amount should be substituted in paragraph 5(a) and also paragraph 9(a)(i) of “Annexure X” to the orders of 19 May 2009.  It seems to me that this is an appropriate case for the freezing order to be extended.  Senior Counsel for the second respondent has indicated that if such an order is made, he would not oppose it being made until further order, provided that liberty to apply is granted in respect of the order as made, and I would agree to that course. 

I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Graham.

Associate:

Dated:       17 July 2009

Counsel for the Applicant:	D B McGovern SC and A J O'Brien
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the First and Fourth Respondents:	B W Rayment QC, H R Sorensen and A G Diethelm
Solicitor for the First and Fourth Respondents:	M J Woods & Co
Counsel for the Second Respondent:	D E Baran
Solicitor for the Second Respondent:	Michael Abboud & Co

Dates of Hearing:	13 July 2009
Date of Judgment:	13 July 2009