Keenhilt Pty Ltd & Denburrow Pty Ltd v. Byron - [2008] QSC 70

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Keenhilt Pty Ltd & Denburrow Pty Ltd v Byron [2008] QSC 70

PARTIES:

KEENHILT PTY LTD (ACN 101 968 772)

(respondent/ plaintiff)

and

DENBURROW PTY LTD (ACN 101 850 819)

(respondent/ plaintiff)

v

LOLA ANNE BYRON

(applicant/defendant)

FILE NO/S:

BS10493 of 2007

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 February 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 February 2008

JUDGE:

White J

ORDER:

1. Judgment for the defendant pursuant to Rule 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

2. The plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.

CATCHWORDS:

TAXES AND DUTIES – INCOME TAX AND RELATED LEGISLATION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSTRUCTION OF INCOME TAX STATUTES – PARTICULAR WORDS AND PHRASES – where defendant published information received in her role as an officer of the Australian Tax Office in alleged contravention s 16(2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1935 (Cth) – whether that publication was made while the defendant was in the performance of her duties as an officer so as to activate the exception in s 16(2A) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1935 (Cth)

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where a claim was made for exemplary damages but not compensatory damages – where the disclosure of information on which the claim for damages was based was a necessary part of the defendant’s duties – whether the plaintiffs’ claim had any real prospect of success

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), s 16

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and Salcedo [2005] QCA 227, cited

XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 448, cited

Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryan (2004) 59 NSWLR 678, cited

Canadian Pacific Tobacco Company v Stapleton (1952) 86 CLR 1, cited

Consolidated Press Holding Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1995) 57 FCR 348, cited

COUNSEL:

T.V. Bradley for the Applicant

LJ Nevison for the First and Second Respondents

SOLICITORS:

Minter Ellison for the Applicant

Cleary Hoare for the Respondents

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CIVIL JURISDICTION

WHITE J

No BS10493 of 2007

KEENHILT PTY LTD (ACN 101 968 772)	Plaintiff
and
DENBURROW PTY LTD (ACN 101 850 819)	Plaintiff
and
LOLA ANNE BYRON	Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 15/02/2008

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: The applicant has applied for summary judgment against the plaintiffs in proceedings in which she is the defendant, pursuant to Rule 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

The plaintiffs have claimed in their further amended statement of claim of 4 February 2008 that the defendant, who was an officer of the Australian Tax Office within the meaning of section 16(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Commonwealth, acted in contravention of section 16 by conveying information about the affairs of the plaintiff by publishing certain reasons for decision to Barkworth Olives Management Limited as trustee for the BOML…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Keenhilt Pty Ltd & Denburrow Pty Ltd v. Byron and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] QSC 70
Decision Date: 15 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, Keenhilt Pty Ltd and Denburrow Pty Ltd (plaintiffs) brought an action against Byron (defendant) for publishing confidential information that the defendant had received in her capacity as an officer of the Australian Tax Office. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant's actions breached the confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1935 (Cth) and sought damages, including exemplary damages. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that her publication was within the scope of her duties, thus invoking an exception in the statute.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's publication of information constituted a breach of the confidentiality provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1935 (Cth). Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the defendant's actions fell within the exception provided in section 16(2A) of the Act, which permits the disclosure of information if the officer is performing their duties. The court also had to consider whether the plaintiffs' claim for exemplary damages had any real prospect of success, particularly given that the disclosure of the information was a necessary part of the defendant's duties.

The court found in favour of the defendant, ruling that her publication of the information was within the scope of her duties as an officer of the Australian Tax Office, thus falling under the exception in section 16(2A) of the Act. The court further held that the plaintiffs' claim for exemplary damages did not have any real prospect of success, given that the disclosure was necessary for the performance of the defendant's duties. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding, to be assessed on the standard basis.

The final orders of the court were that judgment be entered in favour of the defendant pursuant to Rule 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules and that the plaintiffs pay the defendant's costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment for the defendant pursuant to Rule 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

2. The plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.

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.

CITATION:	Keenhilt Pty Ltd & Denburrow Pty Ltd v Byron [2008] QSC 70
PARTIES:	KEENHILT PTY LTD (ACN 101 968 772) (respondent/ plaintiff) and DENBURROW PTY LTD (ACN 101 850 819) (respondent/ plaintiff) v LOLA ANNE BYRON (applicant/defendant)
FILE NO/S:	BS10493 of 2007
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	15 February 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 February 2008
JUDGE:	White J
ORDER:	1. Judgment for the defendant pursuant to Rule 293 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. 2. The plaintiffs pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	TAXES AND DUTIES – INCOME TAX AND RELATED LEGISLATION – GENERAL MATTERS – CONSTRUCTION OF INCOME TAX STATUTES – PARTICULAR WORDS AND PHRASES – where defendant published information received in her role as an officer of the Australian Tax Office in alleged contravention s 16(2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1935 (Cth) – whether that publication was made while the defendant was in the performance of her duties as an officer so as to activate the exception in s 16(2A) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1935 (Cth) PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER RULES OF COURT – SUMMARY JUDGMENT – where a claim was made for exemplary damages but not compensatory damages – where the disclosure of information on which the claim for damages was based was a necessary part of the defendant’s duties – whether the plaintiffs’ claim had any real prospect of success Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), s 16 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation and Salcedo [2005] QCA 227, cited XL Petroleum (NSW) Pty Ltd v Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd (1985) 155 CLR 448, cited Fatimi Pty Ltd v Bryan (2004) 59 NSWLR 678, cited Canadian Pacific Tobacco Company v Stapleton (1952) 86 CLR 1, cited Consolidated Press Holding Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1995) 57 FCR 348, cited
COUNSEL:	T.V. Bradley for the Applicant LJ Nevison for the First and Second Respondents
SOLICITORS:	Minter Ellison for the Applicant Cleary Hoare for the Respondents