Pape v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia & Anor

[2009] HCATrans 159

[2009] HCATrans 159

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S35 of 2009

B e t w e e n -

BRYAN REGINALD PAPE

Plaintiff

and

THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

First Defendant

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Second Defendant

Pronouncement of orders

FRENCH CJ
GUMMOW J
HAYNE J
HEYDON J
CRENNAN J
KIEFEL J
BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 3 APRIL 2009, AT 10.17 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

FRENCH CJ:   This special case was heard in Canberra on 30 and 31 March and 1 April 2009 by a Court constituted by Justices Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell and myself.

The majority of the Court is agreed the questions stated in the amended special case be answered in terms of the order I am about to pronounce.  The Court orders that the questions stated in the amended special case be answered as follows:

Question 1:Does the plaintiff have standing to seek the relief   claimed in his writ of summons and statement of claim?

Answer:Yes.

Question 2:Is the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act (No 2) 2009 (Cth) valid because it is supported by one or more express or implied heads of legislative power under the Commonwealth Constitution?

Answer:The Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act (No 2) 2009 is a valid law of the Commonwealth.

Question 3:Is payment of the tax bonus to which the plaintiff is   entitled under the Tax Bonus for Working AustraliansAct (No 2) 2009 supported by a valid appropriation under ss 81 and 83 of the Constitution?

Answer:There is an appropriation of the Consolidated Revenue Fund within the meaning of the Constitution in respect of payments by the Commissioner required by s 7 of the Tax Bonus for Working Australians Act (No 2) 2009.

Question 4:Who should pay the costs of the special case?

Answer:In accordance with the agreement of the parties   announced on the second day of the hearing of the   special case, there is no order for costs.

I publish that order.  The reasons for the Court’s order will be delivered at a later date.  The Court is adjourned to Tuesday, 21 April 2009 at 10.15.

AT 10.20 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED