Goodman, P.S v Commissioner of Taxation

[1988] FCA 520

S 2 0 / $8

JUDGMENT KO. ........ ........ .. ...... ,...

NOT FOR CIRCULATION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	) No. G 372 of 1988
1
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN:  PETER SOLOMON GOODMAN

Applicant

AND :	COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
-

Respondent

JUDGE MAKING ORDERS:	LOCKHART J.
WHERE ORDER MADE:	SYDNEY
DATE ORDER MADE:	8 AUGUST 1988

MINUTE OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The proceeding be transferred to Melbourne and be

continued henceforth at Melbourne.

NOTE:	Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order
36 of the Federal Court Rules.

2 .    The costs of the motion be costs in the proceeding.

NOT FOR CIRCULATION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G 372 of 1988

DIVISION GENERAL )

BETWEEN:  PETER SOLOMON GOODMAN

Applicant

-

AND :  COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

8 August 1988

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

The application in thls matter seeks an order of review

of decisions of the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of

Taxation, to issue to the applicant, Peter Solomon Goodman, a

notrce under S. 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act ("the

Act") dated 29 October 1987 and a decision of the

Commlssioner not to withdraw the notlce notwlthstanding a

request to do	so by the applicant	by letter of 11 February
1988.

The notlce under S. 264 is a lengthy document, and I

need	only	refer	to	It	briefly.	The	notice	purports	to
L .

require the person to whom it is addressed, namely the

applicant, to furnlsh certain information reaatlng to the

years of income from 1979 to 1986 to the Commissioner of

Taxation	on or before	26	November	1987.	The	lnformatlon
sought by the S. 264	notlce	relates,	Inter	alia,	to	the

borrowrng of funds by varlous companles from other companres
together wlth lnformatlon as to family trusts and as to

various payments relatlng to the purchase of businesses.

The matter has proceeded to the stage where an

appearance has been flled and a notice of motion has been

taken out by the respondent seekrng an order that the

proceedings be transferred to the Victorian District Reglstry

of the Court. Appllcatrons of thrs kind involve S. 48 of the

Federal Court of Australla Act 1976, together with 0.10 r.1

and 0.30 r.6 of the Federal Court’s rules. Orders made by

the Court should be framed accordingly.

The respondent has filed evidence in support of the

motion. There is no evidence filed in opposition to the motion. The solicitor for the applicant does not oppose the

orders sought but does not consent to them. It seems to me

that this case has no relevant nexus wlth New South Wales	but
has every relevant nexus with the State	of Victoria and that
the orders sought should therefore	be made.

In dealing with this application, I bear In mlnd the

principles expressed by a Full Court of this Court in National Mutual Holdings Pty. Limited v Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co., ~udgment In which was delivered on 26 July 1988. In

effect, the test established by that case requires that the

Court determlne where can the case be conducted or continued

most suitably bearrng rn mlnd the interests of all the

partles, the ends of justrce in the determlnation of the

lssues between them, and the most efficient admlnistration of

the Court. In my view, ~n this case the Vlctorian Dlstrict

Registry of this Court answers each of those tests.

Accordingly the orders of the Court are that the

proceedrng be transferred to and be continued henceforth at

Melbourne. Upon these orders being made Melbourne will

become the proper place withln the meaning of that expression

in this Court's rules, in particular 0.1 r.4. The provisions

of 0.30 r.6 therefore come into effect, and therefore there

IS no need for a speciflc order to be made under 0.30 r.6.

The proper order for costs, I think, 1s that the costs

be costs in the proceeding. I therefore order that the costs

of the motlon be costs in the proceeding.

I certify that this and the preceding two
(2) pages are a	true copy of the reasons
for ~udgment herein of the Honourable	Mr.
Justrce Lockhart.
Associate	h

Date:  0 August, 1988

...

r

Solicitor for the applicant: Messrs. Rosenblum & Partners

Solicitor for the respondent: Australian Government Sollcltor

Hearing:  of Date 8 August 1988

Date of Judgment:  8 August 1988