Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders
GUMMOW J KIRBY J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 10 MARCH 2005, AT 9.39 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
GUMMOW J: The listing of the hearings of applications by the applicant to set aside bankruptcy notices were published in court lists, in a Sydney newspaper and on the Internet. The applicant asserted that thereby he was defamed by the respondent creditor on whose application the bankruptcy notices were issued and that the respondent was liable to him as publisher of that defamatory matter.
His action in the Supreme Court of New South Wales was dismissed on summary application as disclosing no cause of action. An application for leave to appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the primary judge or the Court of Appeal.
The further complaint in the special leave application asserting the invalidity of the Defamation Act 1974 (NSW) has no substance.
Special leave is refused with costs.
Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application with costs.
I publish the disposition signed by Justice Kirby and myself.
AT 9.40 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED
Details
AGLC
Croker v Commissioner of Taxation [2005] HCATrans 137
Case
[2005] HCATrans 137
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The dispute in *Croker v Commissioner of Taxation* concerned the deductibility of certain expenses incurred by the taxpayer, Mr. Croker, in relation to his acquisition of shares in a company. The Commissioner of Taxation disallowed these deductions, leading to the taxpayer's appeal to the Full Federal Court.
The primary legal issue before the Full Federal Court was whether the expenses incurred by Mr. Croker, which included legal fees, stamp duty, and brokerage fees, were deductible under section 8-1 of the *Income Tax Assessment Act 1997* (Cth) as outgoings incurred in gaining or producing assessable income, or alternatively, as outgoings necessarily incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing assessable income. The court also considered whether these expenses were capital in nature, and therefore not deductible.
The Full Federal Court, in allowing the taxpayer's appeal, reasoned that the expenses were incurred in the course of carrying on a business of investing and trading in shares. The court applied the principles established in cases such as *FCT v. JR. Grace & Co (Australia) Pty Ltd* and *John v FCT*, which distinguish between capital outgoings and revenue outgoings. The court found that Mr. Croker's activities demonstrated a profit-making intention and a systematic approach to share acquisition and disposal, indicative of a business. The expenses were therefore considered to be revenue in nature and deductible.