Paton, S.L. v Commissioner of Taxation

./

'- ; ,,

L
m C

JUDGMENT NO. &..g.& ?...E v'' Q3
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY j

NO. ~ ~ 1 0 8 1

of 1988

1

GENERAL

DIVISION

BETWEEN: SONIA LESLIE PATON
Applicant

AND : COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Respondent

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NO. ~ G l O 8 2

of 1988

)

GENERAL

DIVISION

BETWEEN: LAWRENCE CLIFFORD PATON
Applicant

AND : COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
Respondent

28 APRIL 1989

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

which were directions hearings.

LOCRHART J.

These matters were earlier disposed of by consent by allowing the appeals and setting aside irrelevant assessments, there is stlll however some dispute between the partles as to costs. The applicants ask for an order for costs since they have, in effect, won the appeals. The respondent opposes that but does consent to paying the applicants' costs for 24 February and 22 March this year

Having read the evidence and heard the argument I am of the view, especially in the llght of the hlstory of the matter in the Court, that the proper order for costs is that the respondent should pay one half of the applicants' costs save for the two days I have mentioned where he has to pay all the applicantsf costs. Accordingly I make that order.

I certify that this and the preceding one
(1) page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lockhart.
~ssociate
Date: 28 April 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Paton, S.L. v Commissioner of Taxation and Lawrence Clifford Paton v Commissioner of Taxation, the applicants, Sonia Leslie Paton and Lawrence Clifford Paton, sought costs against the respondent, the Commissioner of Taxation, following the resolution of their appeals. The disputes were initially addressed by consent, with the appeals being allowed and the relevant assessments set aside. However, a disagreement remained concerning the costs incurred during the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of costs, specifically whether the applicants were entitled to recover costs from the Commissioner given that they had effectively won their appeals. The applicants argued that they should be compensated for their legal expenses, while the Commissioner opposed this, albeit consenting to cover specific costs incurred on certain dates.

Justice Lockhart, after reviewing the evidence and arguments presented, concluded that the Commissioner should bear half of the applicants' costs, except for the specified dates where the Commissioner would cover the full costs. This decision was influenced by the overall history and conduct of the case within the court. Consequently, the court issued an order in line with Justice Lockhart's judgment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established