Legal Research
Cases
G Global 120e T2 Pty Ltd as trustee for the G Global 120e Aut v Commissioner of State Revenue

G Global 120e T2 Pty Ltd as trustee for the G Global 120e Aut v Commissioner of State Revenue

Case [2025] HCATrans 33 7 May 2025

Judicial Review

Statutory Construction

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2025] HCATrans 033

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B48 of 2024

B e t w e e n -
G GLOBAL 120E T2 PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE G GLOBAL 120E AUT
Appellant
and
COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE
Respondent

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B49 of 2024
No B50 of 2024

B e t w e e n -
G GLOBAL 180Q PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE G GLOBAL 180Q AUT
Appellant
and
COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE
Respondent

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M60 of 2024

B e t w e e n -
FRANCIS STOTT
Plaintiff
and
THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
First Defendant
THE STATE OF VICTORIA
Second Defendant

GAGELER CJ
GORDON J
EDELMAN J
STEWARD J
GLEESON J
JAGOT J
BEECH‑JONES J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 7 MAY 2025, AT 10.02 AM

____________________

GAGELER CJ: There will be no need for the announcement of appearances. The transcript will record the appearances as set out in the Court list.

MS F.I. GORDON, KC appears with MR T.M. WOOD and MS A.I. WHARLDALL for the appellants in B48/2024, B49/2024 and B50/2024. (instructed by PricewaterhouseCoopers)

MR G.J.D. DEL VILLAR, KC (Solicitor‑General of the State of Queensland) appears with MS F.J. NAGORCKA, MR M.J. HAFEEZ‑BAIG and MR K.J.E. BLORE for the respondent in B48/2024, B49/2024 and B50/2024. (instructed by Crown Law (Qld))

MR J.T. GLEESON, SC appears with MR S.H. HARTFORD DAVIS, MR S.J. HOARE and MR H.A.X. ROGERS for the plaintiff in M60/2024. (instructed by Johnson Winter Slattery)

MR S.P. DONAGHUE, KC (Solicitor‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia) appears with MS A. LORD and MR G.B. AYRES for the first defendant in M60/2024, and on behalf of the Attorney‑General of the Commonwealth of Australia, intervening in B48/2024, B49/2024 and B50/2024. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

MR A.D. POUND, SC (Solicitor‑General for the State of Victoria) appears with MR C.P. YOUNG, KC, MR A.C. ROE and MR L.L. CHIRCOP for the second defendant in M60/2024, and on behalf of the Attorney‑General for the State of Victoria, intervening in B48/2024, B49/2024 and B50/2024. (instructed by Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office)

MR M.J. WAIT, SC (Solicitor‑General for the State of South Australia) appears with MR J.F. METZER on behalf of the Attorney‑General for the State of South Australia, intervening in all four matters. (instructed by Crown Solicitor’s Office (SA))

MR C.S. BYDDER, SC (Solicitor‑General for the State of Western Australia) appears with MR S.J. COBBETT on behalf of the Attorney‑General for the State of Western Australia, intervening in all four matters. (instructed by State Solicitor’s Office (WA))

MR J.G. RENWICK, SC appears with MR M.O. PULSFORD on behalf of the Attorney‑General for the State of New South Wales, intervening in all four matters. (instructed by Crown Solicitor (NSW))

GAGELER CJ: Mr Gleeson.

MR GLEESON: Thank you, your Honours. Your Honours, our first proposition concerns the inconsistency between the Commonwealth Act and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading G Global 120e T2 Pty Ltd as trustee for the G Global 120e Au...

Details

AGLC: G Global 120e T2 Pty Ltd as trustee for the G Global 120e Aut v Commissioner of State Revenue [2025] HCATrans 33
Case: [2025] HCATrans 33
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by G Global 120e T2 Pty Ltd, as trustee for the G Global 120e Aut (the taxpayer), against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute concerned the Commissioner of State Revenue's assessment of stamp duty on a transaction involving the transfer of units in a trust. The taxpayer argued that the transaction was not dutiable, while the Commissioner contended it was.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the transfer of units in the G Global 120e Aut trust constituted a "dutiable transaction" under the *Duties Act 2000* (Vic). Specifically, the court had to determine if the transaction fell within the definition of an "acquisition of dutiable property" or if it was otherwise subject to stamp duty as a dutiable transaction.

The High Court reasoned that the *Duties Act* defines dutiable property broadly to include interests in trusts. The court found that the transfer of units in the trust represented an acquisition of an interest in dutiable property, thereby triggering the stamp duty provisions. The court applied the principles of statutory interpretation, focusing on the plain meaning of the words used in the *Duties Act* and relevant case law concerning the nature of unit trusts and their underlying property. The court concluded that the transaction was indeed a dutiable transaction.

The High Court dismissed the taxpayer's appeal, upholding the Commissioner's assessment of stamp duty.

Orders