John Joseph Mostyn v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation

Case [1987] FCA 827


NOT FOR

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

)

NO. G228 Of 1987

)

DIVISION

GENERAL

)

BETWEEN :

JOHN

JOSEPH

MOSTYN

Applicant

-

AND :

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

OF TAXATION

Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

Judge making order:

Beaumont, J.

Date order made:

28 May 1987

Where made:

Sydney

THE COURT ORDERS:

1. Application stood over generally with liberty to

restore on seven days'

notice.

2. Costs reserved.

Note :

Settlement and entry

of orders is dealt with in

Order 36 of the Federal Court

Rules.

.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF

AUSTRALIA

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

No. G228 of 1986

)

GENERAL DIVISION

)

BETWEEN:

JOHN JOSEPH MOSTYN

Applicant

.

AND :

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

CORAM: Beaumont, J. DATED: 28 May 1987

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The background of this matter appears in the reasons for judgment in proceedings between the parties No. G.414 of 1986. In these proceedings, the prosecutor seeks orders by way of judicial review pursuant to the provisions of s.39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (see p.8 of those reasons). Sch 1 of the Judicial Review Act exempts certain decisions from review under that statute but there is no such limitation on the jurisdiction

conferred on the Court by s.39B(1)

of the Judiciary Act (See

Mahoney

v.

Singh-Dillon, Full Federal Court, unreported, 19

February 1987).

Having found against the respondent on his objection to jurisdiction in the other proceedings, it is unnecessary that I deal further with this application. I propose to stand the

.

2.

proceedings over generally but reserve liberty to restore should restoration to the list become necessary. Costs will be reserved.

preceding Ofu2 ( I )

page are a true copy of the

I certify that this and the his Honour Mr. Justice Bepumont.

Dated: 28 May 1987

Details
AGLC
John Joseph Mostyn v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1987] FCA 827
Case
[1987] FCA 827
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of John Joseph Mostyn v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation involved the applicant, John Joseph Mostyn, seeking judicial review against the respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. The applicant aimed to challenge certain decisions made by the respondent. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, specifically in the New South Wales District Registry under the General Division.

The central legal issue the court needed to address was whether the Federal Court had jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation under section 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903. The applicant argued that the court's jurisdiction should not be restricted by the exemptions outlined in Schedule 1 of the Judicial Review Act. The court had to consider if the statutory provisions allowed for such review and whether the earlier findings in Mahoney v. Singh-Dillon provided a precedent that supported the applicant's position.

In his judgment, Justice Beaumont determined that the court did indeed have jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation as per section 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act. This conclusion was based on the absence of any statutory limitation on the court's jurisdiction in this matter. Given the findings from the earlier proceedings (No. G.414 of 1986), where the court had already ruled against the respondent's objection to jurisdiction, Justice Beaumont saw no need to further elaborate on the jurisdictional aspects. Consequently, the court stood the proceedings over generally but reserved the liberty to restore them if necessary, and costs were reserved pending further directions.

The court's order was to stand the application over generally with the liberty to restore on seven days' notice and to reserve costs. This decision ensures that the matter remains open for potential future restoration while costs are held in abeyance, pending further developments or clarifications.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Full text does not contain this section.