| 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
|
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 | |
|
| 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 |
- AGLC
- John Joseph Mostyn v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [1987] FCA 827
- Case
- [1987] FCA 827
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.