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 RespondentGARRY BONACCORSO
Second RespondentIFTC BROKING SERVICES LTD
Third RespondentMGG CAPITAL PTY LIMITED AS TRUSTEE FOR WEBTEL MANAGEMENT SUPER FUND
Fourth RespondentJUDGE:
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 RespondentGARRY BONACCORSO
Second RespondentIFTC BROKING SERVICES LTD
Third RespondentMGG CAPITAL PTY LIMITED AS TRUSTEE FOR WEBTEL MANAGEMENT SUPER FUND
Fourth RespondentJUDGE:
GRAHAM J
DATE:
13 JULY 2009
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
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.
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
- AGLC
- Commissioner of Taxation v Grimaldi (No. 6) [2009] FCA 766
- Case
- [2009] FCA 766
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide several legal issues, including whether the penalties imposed on Mr Grimaldi were valid and enforceable under the applicable taxation laws, and whether the administrative process leading to the imposition of these penalties was procedurally fair. The court also had to examine the scope and effect of the orders made on 19 May 2009 and whether they could be extended beyond the initially specified timeframe.
The court found that the penalties imposed on Mr Grimaldi were valid and enforceable, as they were imposed in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions. It also concluded that the administrative process followed was procedurally fair, as it provided Mr Grimaldi with adequate opportunities to present his case and respond to the allegations. The court further determined that the orders made on 19 May 2009 could be extended until further order, subject to either party applying for a change on three days' notice. This extension was seen as necessary to allow the Commissioner to enforce the penalties without further delay.
The court made an order extending the time for enforcement of the penalties imposed on Mr Grimaldi, in accordance with the orders made on 19 May 2009, until further order. This extension was subject to the condition that either party could apply for a change on three days' notice. This decision ensured that the Commissioner could proceed with the enforcement of the penalties while allowing for potential future applications to modify or set aside the orders if warranted.
Orders
Orders of the court
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:
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: GRAHAM J
Full text does not contain this section.