Daniels v Holland (Deputy Commisioner of Taxation)

[2007] HCATrans 89

[2007] HCATrans 089

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Adelaide  No A52 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

GRAHAM DANIELS

Applicant

and

ERIN HOLLAND (DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION)

Respondent

Application for removal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 1 MARCH 2007, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:    The respondent is a Deputy Commissioner of Taxation who has sued the appellant for unpaid tax in the District Court of South Australia. The respondent has sought to have the applicant's defence to her statement of claim filed in that Court struck out. Before the respondent's application could be heard the applicant filed the application to this Court to have the cause removed to this Court pursuant to s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).

The applicant's application must be dismissed.  It is prolix, unhelpfully argumentative, and fails to identify any substantive meritorious or reasonably arguable points of law, constitutional or otherwise, upon which the applicant might rely.  It is not, in any event, the sort of matter which this Court would, at this stage, entertain, there having not even been a hearing of the strike-out application.

The application should therefore be dismissed with costs.  We would not however, in the exercise of our discretion, order costs on an indemnity basis as sought by the respondent.

Because this is an application for removal, it falls to be dealt with in accordance with rule 26.05 and thus Part 41 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to rule 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 Callinan and myself.

AT 9.32AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED