NAB v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue

The case of National Australia Bank Limited versus Chief Commissioner of State Revenue involved a dispute over the imposition of duty on the hire of goods, specifically EFTPOS terminals. The Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Queensland was tasked with determining the legal issues surrounding the classification of the EFTPOS terminals provided by the bank to its customers. The bank argued that the provision of the EFTPOS terminals was incidental and ancillary to the provision of a banking service and thus exempt from duty under the former section 186(1)(f) of the Duties Act 1997. The Commissioner of State Revenue disagreed, contending that the provision of the EFTPOS terminals constituted a hire of goods subject to duty.

The court had to decide whether the expert report provided by the bank, which detailed the general nature of the electronic banking system in Australia, was relevant to determining the intention of those responsible for the provision of the EFTPOS terminals. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether leave should be granted to the bank to adduce this expert evidence under rule 31.19(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. The court considered the relevance of the expert evidence to the central issue of whether the provision of the EFTPOS terminals was incidental and ancillary to the provision of a banking service.

The court held that the expert evidence was relevant to the central issue and should be admitted. The court found that the EFTPOS terminals were provided to enable the contractual provision of the banking service and were not provided for any other purpose. The court also held that the expert evidence was relevant to the question of the intention of those responsible for the provision of the EFTPOS terminals. The court granted leave to the bank to adduce the expert evidence under rule 31.19(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. Consequently, the court found in favour of the bank, ruling that the provision of the EFTPOS terminals was incidental and ancillary to the provision of a banking service and exempt from duty under the former section 186(1)(f) of the Duties Act 1997. The court ordered that the Commissioner of State Revenue pay the costs of the proceeding.