Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Widdup (No 2)

In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Widdup (No 2), the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation sought the repayment of money paid into Court by the respondents to discharge ex parte freezing orders. The Federal Court was required to determine whether the Deputy Commissioner had a good or reasonably arguable case based on a prospective cause of action, whether there was a risk of asset dissipation that could defeat a prospective judgment, and whether the balance of convenience favoured the making of the orders. The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner had a good or reasonably arguable case against the respondents for the recovery of their alleged tax liabilities. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner’s reliance on the conclusive evidence provision in s 350-10 of sch 1 to the Tax Administration Act 1953 (Cth) was valid. The Court rejected the respondents’ claims of jurisdictional error and conscious maladministration, finding that they did not have a good arguable case in that regard. The Court also found that there was a risk of asset dissipation that could defeat a prospective judgment and that the balance of convenience favoured the making of the orders. The Court dismissed the respondents’ interlocutory application and ordered them to pay the Deputy Commissioner’s costs of and associated with the application.