Hii v Commissioner of Taxation

The applicant in Hii v Commissioner of Taxation sought to have his tax agent act as his McKenzie friend, with the added role of making submissions on his behalf. The applicant was in Singapore and declined to return to Australia, proposing to appear via video-link or telephone instead. The court considered whether the applicant should be granted leave to appear remotely, whether his tax agent should be permitted to advocate on his behalf, and whether it was within the court's inherent power to allow such an arrangement. Additionally, the court had to determine if this was in the interests of justice, taking into account the nature and complexity of the issues raised and the fact that the tax agent was not bound by lawyers' ethical obligations or duties to the court.

The court ruled that the applicant could appear by video-link or telephone from Singapore, provided the appearance was reliable and uninterrupted. The applicant's tax agent, Ms Clay, could attend the hearing in person as a McKenzie friend, offering advice and suggestions without interfering with the hearing's orderly conduct. However, Ms Clay could not act as an advocate for the applicant. If the applicant appeared remotely, Ms Clay could sit at the bar table and provide advice via email, again without disrupting the hearing. The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant's interlocutory application.

The court also ordered that the applicant show cause why a vexatious proceedings order should not be made against him, prohibiting further proceedings challenging the audit and objection decisions. The applicant was required to address this issue in his written submissions. Costs were reserved for a later determination. The court's orders were made under Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, governing the entry of orders in such proceedings.