Palmer v No Respondent - [2023] VSCA 322

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCI 2023 0096

MICHAEL GARETH PALMER	Applicant
v
NO RESPONDENT	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 December 2023
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSCA 322
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2023] VSC 458 (Tsalamandris J)

---

TAXATION – Income tax – Judgment against applicant for in excess of $2m for unpaid income tax – Attempt by applicant to file judicial review proceeding – Proposed judicial review proceeding constituting an abuse of process – Application for leave to appeal from primary judge’s refusal to direct Prothonotary to accept and seal proposed originating motion – Application for leave to appeal having no prospects of success – Pseudo-legal gibberish – Mumbo jumbo – Application for leave to appeal totally without merit – Application for leave to appeal refused.

Supreme Court Act 1986, ss 14C and 14D.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Unrepresented
Respondent:
Solicitors
Applicant:
Respondent:

BEACH JA:

In June 2018, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (‘the Deputy Commissioner’) commenced a proceeding in the County Court against Michael Gareth Palmer (‘the applicant’) seeking to recover $1,019,524.20 plus penalty amounts totalling $561,723.33. The Deputy Commissioner alleged that the applicant had paid no income tax for the nine year period from 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2016.
The applicant’s initial responses to the Deputy Commissioner’s proceeding are catalogued in a judgment of Tran JR (as her Honour then was) in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Michael Palmer.[1] They included filing a conditional appearance and sending a document entitled ‘Notice to Show Cause’ addressed to Tran JR, requiring her ‘to show Just Cause with respect to’ (amongst other things):
1.The County Court of Victoria being a court that complies with Chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution, under the Crown of the United Kingdom.
2.The presiding Judge proving that he/she has sworn an oath to the Queen of the United Kingdom.
3.The County Court Civil Procedure Rules 2008 complying with a Parliamentary Order as per section 87 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).[2]
[1][2019] VCC 1401 (‘Reasons of Tran JR’).
[2]For completeness, I should note that, of course, the applicant had no entitlement to send any such notice to Tran JR, nor any entitlement to require any judicial officer ‘to show cause’ of anything or to prove that he or she has sworn any oath.
After various communications with the County Court, and a directions hearing, the applicant made an application for the summary dismissal or striking out of the Deputy Commissioner’s claim, ‘with prejudice, on the grounds that it is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process, and … is, in its entirety a legal nonsense’. In this application, the applicant also claimed ‘costs and damages’.
The applicant’s application was heard by Tran JR on 27 May 2019.[3] Amongst the arguments the applicant advanced at this hearing was that the Deputy Commissioner’s proceeding should be struck out on the basis that:
the “Michael Gareth Palmer” referred to…

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.

Continue reading Palmer v No Respondent

Details

AGLC: Palmer v No Respondent [2023] VSCA 322
Case: [2023] VSCA 322
Decision Date: 15 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Palmer sought judicial review of a decision to tax his income in excess of $2 million. The Federal Court dismissed his application and refused leave to appeal the decision. The legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Court's refusal to accept Palmer's application for judicial review constituted an abuse of process. The court was also required to decide whether Palmer's application for leave to appeal the Federal Court's decision had any prospect of success.

The court found that Palmer's proposed judicial review proceeding constituted an abuse of process. The court found that the proposed proceeding was not a genuine attempt to challenge the validity of the decision to tax Palmer's income but rather a pseudo-legal gibberish and mumbo jumbo. The court found that Palmer's application for leave to appeal the Federal Court's decision had no prospect of success and was totally without merit. The court found that Palmer's application for leave to appeal was an abuse of process and an unnecessary expense to the court.

Palmer's application for leave to appeal was refused. The court ordered Palmer to pay the costs of the proceeding.

Orders