Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Barron [No 2]

[2019] WADC 26

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION -v- BARRON [No 2] [2019] WADC 26

CORAM:   DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT

HEARD:   20 FEBRUARY 2019

DELIVERED          :   6 MARCH 2019

FILE NO/S:   CIV 4255 of 2016

BETWEEN:   DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Plaintiff

AND

PAUL DOUGLAS BARRON

Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Summary judgment application - Prima facie evidence in form of certificate

Legislation:

Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), s 255-45 of sch 1

Result:

Summary judgment for an amount to be assessed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	Mr K L F Chu
Defendant	:	Mr R G S Harrison

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	Minter Ellison
Defendant	:	Tottle Partners

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Nil

DEPUTY REGISTRAR HEWITT:

1. In this matter I delivered a decision on 30 August 2018 in which I ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to a summary judgment.  Following the delivery of my written reasons the defendant sought an opportunity, and I granted that opportunity, to make further submissions in regard to the quantum of the judgment which should be entered.  It would appear that there were some negotiations between the parties in regard to the appropriate figure but agreement was not achieved and as a consequence the matter came back before me on 20 February 2019 for further argument. 

2. There was, and cannot be, any argument as to the amount of income tax which was levied against the defendant the assessments being conclusive proof as to those matters. There also does not appear to be any argument about the amounts paid by the defendant in respect of his income tax liability. What does remain in dispute however is the amount which is being claimed the general interest charge. In that regard information has been provided by the plaintiff in the form of a printout which is the output of a system called the Integrated Core Processing System (ICP) maintained by the Australian Taxation Office. The document produced and exhibited to the affidavit of Mr Derrick McDonald is something in the vicinity of 40 pages. That has formed the bases of upon which the defendant challenges the amount which the plaintiff seeks by way of a judgment. In that process the plaintiff has the advantage of the provisions of s 255-45 of sch 1 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth).  That provides that a certificate issued pursuant to the provision is prima facie evidence of the matters it contains.  In the present case such a certificate was issued on 29 August 2018 and is now somewhat out of date.  In any event the issue which has been raised by the defendant is that it is effectively impossible to understand the computer record which is contained in the ICP statement of account exhibited to Mr McDonald's first affidavit and the calculations of the amount which is claimed by the plaintiff in the writ and of which prima facie evidence has been provided by was of the certificate to which I have referred.  I have spent some effort trying to understand the processes which produced the computer printout to which I have referred.  To me at least, I find the materials produced to be almost incomprehensible.

3. The issue then arises as to whether the judgment sought by the plaintiff should be allowed on the basis of the evidentiary certificate that has been filed or whether the nature of the information provided by the plaintiff intended to establish its entitlement to the amount sought is of such a nature that it raises a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the material upon which the plaintiff relies and upon which the certificate is based. 

4. Prima facie evidence is simply evidence which if not contradicted or disturbed some other way it is sufficient to satisfy the onus which rests upon the party relying upon the evidence.  Were the plaintiff to be relying on the materials which are contained in the printout of the ICP statement I would unhesitantly say that there was an issue to be tried, namely the appropriate quantum of the plaintiff's claim.  Does then the certificate elevate the matter to a stage where such a view is no longer sustainable?  I take the view that it does not.  The plaintiff put this material before the court intending the court to rely upon it.  If the material is of such a nature that the court remains in some confusion and doubt as to accuracy of the amount which is being sought by the plaintiff it seems to me that the defendant should have a proper opportunity to defend on the aspect of the quantum and the plaintiff should be required to establish the accuracy of its calculations in a trial.  

5. With that view in mind my decision is that the plaintiff should be entitled to judgment against the defendant but that judgment should be for an amount to be assessed and the matter should proceed in the usual way for that assessment to take place.  I reach that conclusion on the basis that in my view it is undoubted that the defendant owes the plaintiff a sum of money but I am in considerable doubt as to exactly what amount that might be and in those circumstances I consider that the order I propose to be the appropriate way to deal with the matter. 

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the District Court of Western Australia.

AC
Court Officer

5 MARCH 2019