Harding v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 2)

The Federal Court was asked to review a District Court judgment in the case of Harding v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 2). Mr Harding sought to challenge the finality of the District Court judgment, arguing that it did not constitute a final judgment due to a conversation he had with a government solicitor before the judgment was entered. He claimed this conversation, in which the solicitor dismissed his concerns about a matter involving Malcolm McClure, was analogous to the fraud case of SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. The court needed to determine whether the conversation could be considered as a form of procedural unfairness that would render the judgment non-final under the applicable legislation.

The court examined the nature of procedural unfairness, considering whether Mr Harding's conversation with the solicitor constituted a significant procedural defect akin to the fraud in the SZFDE case. The court noted that while fraud in public law cases is rare, the principle of "Wednesbury unreasonableness" applies to cases where a decision-maker acts without proper consideration. However, the court found that Mr Harding's situation did not align with the principle of fraud unravelling everything, as there was no evidence of the solicitor acting in bad faith or that the judgment was obtained through improper means. The court concluded that the conversation did not render the District Court judgment non-final.

Based on the court's reasoning, it was determined that the District Court judgment was indeed a final judgment. The conversation with the solicitor did not constitute a procedural defect that would invalidate the judgment. Furthermore, the court found that there was no separate discretion to set aside the Bankruptcy Notice under the circumstances presented. The application was dismissed, and Mr Harding was ordered to pay the costs of the Respondent. The court's decision upheld the finality of the District Court judgment and rejected Mr Harding's claims of procedural unfairness.