DCT v Glennan

DCT v Glennan was a case in which the plaintiff, DCT, sought to have the defendant's defence and cross-claim struck out, and the defendant sought various forms of relief including prohibition, mandamus, certiorari, and an extension of time. The dispute originated from an alleged failure by DCT and its officers to assess the defendant's income in accordance with a public ruling. The defendant argued that this failure rendered the assessment inconsistent with the public ruling, TD93/58. The case progressed through several stages, including an application in the High Court for constitutional writs and ancillary relief, an appeal from the judgment of Kirby J to the Full Court of the High Court, and subsequent proceedings in the High Court's original jurisdiction.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether DCT had acted inconsistently with TD93/58, whether there was any basis to claim equitable fraud, and whether the defendant had made out a reasonably arguable case for the various forms of relief sought. Gleeson CJ, in his decision to strike out the statement of claim, considered whether the plaintiff's actions were inconsistent with the public ruling and whether the defendant's allegations of equitable fraud were arguable. Gleeson CJ found that there was no disconformity between TD93/58 and the assessment issued to the defendant and that the defendant's claims of equitable fraud were unfounded.

Gleeson CJ concluded that the defendant had not made out a reasonably arguable case for the relief sought. The court found that TD93/58 was a public ruling that was not concealed and had been brought to the attention of the relevant courts. Gleeson CJ also found that the defendant's allegations regarding the relationship between the AAT Senior Member and Transfield Pty Ltd did not support a claim that the presiding member was disqualified. Consequently, the court decided to strike out the statement of claim, dismissing the defendant's claims and cross-claim.