HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
GUMMOW J
McKEWINS HAIRDRESSING AND
BEAUTY SUPPLIES PTY LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) APPLICANT
AND
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION FIRST RESPONDENT
WAYNE LEVICK SECOND RESPONDENT
McKewins Hairdressing and Beauty Supplies Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
[2000] HCA 27
5 May 2000
S123/1999
ORDER
The notice of motion filed 1 May 2000 is dismissed.
The document described as a notice of discontinuance, which was filed on 1 May 2000, is set aside.
The notice of motion for removal filed on 29 July 1999 is amended to add Wayne Levick as second respondent but is then dismissed.
The second respondent, Mr Levick, is to bear the costs of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of and incidental to his two motions and of Mr Levick's motion filed on 1 May 2000. Such costs are to be taxed on the basis, in each case, that the costs include all costs except in so far as they are of an unreasonable amount or were unreasonably incurred so that, subject to such exceptions, the Deputy Commissioner is completely indemnified by Mr Levick for the Deputy Commissioner's costs.
Certify that these motions were a matter proper for the attendance of counsel in chambers.
2.
Otherwise dismiss the Deputy Commissioner's motions filed on 2 February 2000 and 27 April 2000.
Representation:
No appearance for McKewins Hairdressing and Beauty Supplies Pty Ltd (In Liquidation)
R G Orr QC with G L Ebbeck for the first respondent (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
D C Fitzgibbon for the second respondent (instructed by Wayne Levick & Associates)
Notice: This copy of the Court’s Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
McKewins Hairdressing and Beauty Supplies Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
High Court – Practice and procedure – Removal of causes – Constitutional arguments raised in application untenable – Application made on instructions of a third party to the litigation – Solicitor's duties to Court.
Constitutional law – Office of Governor-General – Validity of commission and appointment of.
Practice and procedure – Joinder of solicitor – Costs – Award of costs against solicitor – Award of costs on indemnity basis – Discontinuance under O 27 r 1(1) of High Court Rules – Notice thereunder purportedly given by a person other than the applicant on record.
Words and phrases – "indemnity costs".
Constitution, ss 2, 4, 58.
Corporations Law, s 471A.
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 40, 78B.
High Court Rules, O 27 r 1(1).
GUMMOW J. On 19 September 1999, the Supreme Court of New South Wales ordered that McKewins Hairdressing and Beauty Supplies Pty Ltd ("McKewins") be wound up on the application of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. Mr Warren Pantzer was appointed liquidator.
Earlier, on 29 July 1999, there had been filed in this Court two documents. The first is an application in the name of McKewins and signed by a solicitor, Mr Wayne Levick, "on behalf of the [a]pplicant" seeking removal of part of…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read G & M Aldridge Pty Ltd v Walsh and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2000] HCA 27
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the constitutional arguments raised by McKewins were tenable, the validity of a notice of discontinuance filed on behalf of McKewins, and whether costs should be awarded against Mr Levick, including on an indemnity basis. The Court also had to determine the proper procedure for the removal of causes and the solicitor's duties to the Court when acting on the instructions of a third party.
Gummow J reasoned that the constitutional arguments were untenable and that the notice of discontinuance was invalid as it was not given by the applicant on record. The Court found that Mr Levick had improperly sought to involve himself in the litigation and had instructed solicitors to take steps on his behalf without proper authority. Consequently, the Court dismissed the notice of motion filed on 1 May 2000, set aside the purported notice of discontinuance, and dismissed the motion for removal, ordering Mr Levick to bear the costs of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation on an indemnity basis.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The notice of motion filed 1 May 2000 is dismissed.
2.
The document described as a notice of discontinuance, which was filed on 1 May 2000, is set aside.
3.
The notice of motion for removal filed on 29 July 1999 is amended to add Wayne Levick as second respondent but is then dismissed.
4.
The second respondent, Mr Levick, is to bear the costs of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of and incidental to his two motions and of Mr Levick's motion filed on 1 May 2000. Such costs are to be taxed on the basis, in each case, that the costs include all costs except in so far as they are of an unreasonable amount or were unreasonably incurred so that, subject to such exceptions, the Deputy Commissioner is completely indemnified by Mr Levick for the Deputy Commissioner's costs.
5.
Certify that these motions were a matter proper for the attendance of counsel in chambers.
2.
6.
Otherwise dismiss the Deputy Commissioner's motions filed on 2 February 2000 and 27 April 2000.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: GUMMOW J
Full text does not contain this section.