Page, M.T. v Commissioner of Taxation

[1989] FCA 455

JUDGMENT No. .%?. ....... S 87 / .."_ 4

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )	NO. NG715 of 1987

)

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN:  MARY T. PAGE

Applicant

AND :  COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )	NO. NG716 of 1987

1

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN:  GREGORY T. PAGE

Applicant

AND :  COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

Respondent

Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
) No. NG717-718 of 1987

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG 3347 of 1987

)

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN:  PAGES HIRE CENTRE (NSW)

I	PTY. LIMITED
i

Applicant

!

AND :  COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION

5 June 1989

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

In each of the matters NG715 - 718 of 1987 and NG 3347 of 1987 there is a notice of motion taken out by the respondent seeking an order that the proceeding be dismissed for want of prosecution. I have heard that motion and have also conducted a directions hearing in each of the matters.

The case for the dismissal of the proceedings for want of prosecution is extremely strong, in fact one of the strongest I have ever seen. The respondent would normally be entitled to the order which he seeks. However as it is a matter of discretion I note that although there has been a constant history of disobedience of Court orders in these matters by the applicant an attempt has been made, although late, to put the matter in order.

I am assured by counsel for the applicant that the affidavit evidence upon which the applicants seek to rely is now filed albeit late and that the only remaining evidence the applicant will seek to adduce will be in response to any notification from the respondent of objections which he may take to any paragraphs of the existing affidvits, in other words corrective affidavits. Subject to this the evidence is complete. All that remains is inspection by the respondent

of the applicants' documents. At the nextdirections hearing of 14 July 1989 the matter may be fixed for hearing or leave then given to obtain a hearing date. Accordingly, I do not propose at this stage to accede to the motion however I will not dismiss it but adjourn it to the 14 July 1989. It is, I think, appropriate that it be regarded as a live motion.

The orders which I make are as follows:

1. I direct that if the affidavits which have already been

filed in these matters by the applicants have not been served
upon the respondent, they be served today by 4.00 pm.

2. I direct that the respondent inspect the applicantsr discovered documents on or before 26 June 1989 and direct the respondent to notify the applicants in writing on or before 26 June next of any paragraphs or portions of paragraphs of the affidavits of the applicants to which objection is proposed to be taken at the trial.

3. I direct that the applicants to file and serve any corrective affidavits in response to the notice of objection of the respondent on or before 13 July next and the matter is adjourned to 14 July next. The motion is also adjourned to 14 July next.

4. I order the applicant in each matter to pay the

respondent's costs of the motion and of today.

I certify that this and the preceding three ( 3 ) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lockhart.

l

Associate

Date: 5 June 1989

Counsel for the Applicants:	Mr. A. Slater, Mr. F. Carnovale
Solicitors for the Applicants:	J.W. Walker and D.K.L. Raphael
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	5 June 1989
Date of Judgment:	5 June 1989