Glennan v Commissioner of Taxation

The appellant, Glennan, sought to challenge an assessment by the Commissioner of Taxation. The dispute concerned whether the appellant could seek collateral relief under section 75(v) of the Constitution, which grants the High Court original jurisdiction in matters against an officer of the Commonwealth, and whether the existence of an avenue of appeal to the High Court was relevant to the exercise of discretion in granting such relief. The appellant also alleged that the Commissioner's failure to bring a relevant Taxation Determination to the attention of the appellant and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("AAT") constituted "equitable fraud" and gave rise to jurisdictional error by the AAT, in alleged contravention of section 14ZZF(1)(a)(v) of the *Taxation Administration Act 1953* (Cth). A further issue was whether compliance with section 78B(1) of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) was a prerequisite for the court to exercise its jurisdiction. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The High Court was required to determine whether the review process established by Part IVC of the *Taxation Administration Act 1953* (Cth) precluded the appellant from seeking collateral relief under section 75(v) of the Constitution. It also had to consider whether the Commissioner's alleged conduct amounted to "equitable fraud" and whether this, or any alleged contravention of section 14ZZF(1)(a)(v) of the *Taxation Administration Act 1953* (Cth), constituted a jurisdictional error by the AAT. Finally, the Court needed to decide if compliance with section 78B(1) of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) was a necessary condition for the exercise of its jurisdiction.

The Court concluded that no error had been demonstrated in the decision against which the appeal was brought. The Court found that the review process established by Part IVC of the *Taxation Administration Act 1953* (Cth) was the exclusive avenue for challenging the assessment, and therefore, collateral relief under section 75(v) of the Constitution was not available. The Court also held that the alleged failure to disclose the Taxation Determination did not amount to "equitable fraud" or jurisdictional error. Furthermore, the Court determined that while section 78B(1) of the *Judiciary Act 1903* (Cth) requires notice to be given, its non-compliance did not necessarily prevent the exercise of jurisdiction in this instance, as the substantive issues were resolved against the appellant.

The High Court dismissed the appellant's notices of motion and the appeal, with costs.