PJYY and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

This matter concerned an application by a non-party, Mr Smith, to set aside a summons issued by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) at the request of the applicant in review proceedings. The applicant had requested that the proceedings be heard in private, pursuant to s 14ZZE of the Taxation Administration Act 1953, which involved the use of a pseudonym and the suppression of the applicant's identity in published decisions. Mr Smith contended that the summons was oppressive, potentially issued for an improper purpose, and that the documents sought lacked apparent relevance. To properly make submissions on these grounds, Mr Smith sought access to the applicant's identity and further information regarding the reviewable objection decision and the parties' contentions.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether a non-party who has received a summons should be granted access to the identity of the applicant in private review proceedings, and what information a non-party might reasonably expect to receive to enable them to object to a summons. The Tribunal was required to consider the principles of procedural fairness in the context of a private hearing and the extent to which redactions to documents provided to the non-party were appropriate.

Deputy President Bernard J McCabe P found that it would not be procedurally fair to require Mr Smith to make submissions on his objection to the summons without apprising him of the applicant's identity, notwithstanding the private nature of the proceedings. The Tribunal reasoned that while a private hearing and legitimate confidentiality concerns are relevant considerations, they should not necessarily outweigh the need for a non-party to understand the context of a summons. The Tribunal indicated that if the applicant wished to proceed with the summons, they should identify themselves to Mr Smith, or provide a compelling explanation to the Tribunal for why their identity should remain undisclosed. The Tribunal also noted that the redacted documents provided to Mr Smith were insufficient for him to form a meaningful view of the apparent relevance of the sought documents and suggested alternatives, such as providing unredacted documents or a clear summary of the issues, subject to appropriate applications for confidentiality orders.