Sharp, J.R. v Commissioner of Taxation Summary

~UDGMEN'I:

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
1

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NO.

I

GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN: JEFFREY RALPH SHARP &
ANOR.

Applicant

AND : COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION
& ORS.

Respondent

JUDGE MAKING ORDERS: LOCKHART J.
DATE ORDERS MADE: 13 JUNE 1989
WHERE ORDERS MADE: SYDNEY

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Peter Arnott be added as the fifth respondent to

proceeding G 263 of 1988.

The title to that proceeding shall until further order

read: Re Peter Arnott; Ex parte The Deputy Commissioner of Taxation for the Commonwealth of Australia.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order

36 of the Federal Court Rules.

3. The order consequent upon the making of the orders in Court on 26 June 1989 shall not be entered until further order.

Liberty to apply is reserved to any party on two days

notice.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

)

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NO. NG263 of 1988

1

GENERAL DIVISION 1

BETWEEN: JEFFREY RALPH SHARP &
ANOR.

Applicant

AND : COMMISSIONEROF TAXATION
& ORS.

Respondent

13 July 1989

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOCKHART J.

On 26 June 1989 the Court made orders by consent of the
parties, including an order dismissing the application. That

order has not yet been taken out. In the meantime the

granted leave to file in Court a notice of motion seeking to respondents to the proceeding have today sought and been

add Mr. Peter Arnott as a party and certain orders intended to have him adjudged guilty of contempt of court in connection with this proceeding.
The first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of
Taxation for the Commonwealth of Australia, has taken this
course rather than commence a separate proceeding for

contempt against Mr. Arnott, relying in part upon the provisions of Order 40 rule 5 of this Court's rules. ~t seems to me that, although it may be open to the Deputy Commissioner to commence a separate proceeding for contempt against Mr. Arnott, it is also open to him to proceed for contempt in this present proceeding, notwithstanding the making of the orders by consent on 26 June. I think it desirable that the order not be taken out until the motion for contempt has been determined, and I do not see prejudice arising to any of the parties to the proceeding by that course being taken. If any prejudice could be subsequently shown the matter can always be restored to the list and then assessed in the light of the facts as they then stand.

Mr. Lind, who appears for the applicants in the proceeding, has expressed his client's concern that any subsequent listing of the matter may, in view of the publicity that has hitherto attended this matter, result in appearance to the public eye of his clients being the persons against whom contempt is alleged. Following discussion

between counsel for the Deputy Commissioner, Mr. Lind and the Court this morning, a formula was devised which is embodied

in the orders which I propose. This formula seems to me to ensure that proceeding G 263 of 1988 continues for the purpose of dealing with the contempt motior! and satisfies the legitimate wishes of the applicants.
Argument has also taken place on the question of costs,
but in all the circusmtances in my view the proper order is
t h a t t h e r e be no o r d e r a s t o t h e c o s t s of today of any pa r ty .

The o r d e r s of t h e Court a r e a s fol lows:

1. That P e t e r ArnOtt be added a s t h e f i f t h respondent t o
proceeding G 263 of 1988.

2. That t h e t i t l e t o t h a t proceeding s h a l l u n t i l f u r t h e r

o r d e r read: Re P e t e r Arnot t ; Ex p a r t e The Deputy

Commissioner of Taxa t ion f o r t h e Commonwealth of A u s t r a l i a .

3. That t h e o r d e r consequent upon t h e making of t h e o r d e r s

i n Court on 26 June 1989 s h a l l n o t be e n t e r e d u n t i l f u r t h e r
o r d e r .

4 . L i b e r t y t o a p p l y i s reserved t o any p a r t y on two days
n o t i c e .

I d i r e c t t h e R e g i s t r a r t o nominate an e a r l y r e t u r n d a t e

f o r t h e n o t i c e of motion.

I c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s and t h e p reced ing two

( 2 ) pages a r e a t r u e copy of t h e reasons

f o r judgment h e r e i n of t h e Honourable 13r.

J u s t i c e Lockhar t .
A s s o c i a t e

Date: 1 3 J u l y 1989

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr. Agius
Solicitors for the Applicant: Australian Government
Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. Lind
Solicitors for the Respondents: Allen, Allen & Hemsley
Date of Hearing: 13 July 1989
Date of Judgment: 13 July 1989

The Federal Court of Australia heard a case involving Jeffrey Ralph Sharp and another applicant against the Commissioner of Taxation and others. The primary dispute centred on the applicants' challenge to the dismissal of their application, which had been ordered by consent on 26 June 1989. Subsequently, the respondents sought to add Peter Arnott as a party to the proceeding and sought orders to hold him in contempt of court. The court had to decide whether it was permissible for the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation to proceed for contempt within the existing proceeding, rather than initiating a separate contempt proceeding.

Justice Lockhart concluded that while the Deputy Commissioner could commence a separate contempt proceeding, it was also permissible to proceed for contempt within the current proceeding, particularly considering the consent orders already made. The judge found it prudent to delay the entry of the dismissal order until the contempt motion was determined. This decision aimed to balance the interests of all parties, including mitigating concerns about public perception due to the publicity surrounding the case. Lockhart J also noted that any potential prejudice could be assessed if it arose after the contempt motion was decided. Regarding costs, the judge ruled that no order should be made concerning the costs of the current proceeding.

The court ordered that Peter Arnott be added as the fifth respondent to the proceeding, and the title of the proceeding was altered to reflect this change. The entry of the order consequent upon the 26 June 1989 orders was stayed until further notice. Liberty to apply for further orders was reserved for any party, with the Registrar directed to set an early return date for any such notices of motion.

Sharp, J.R. v Commissioner of Taxation

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

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

JUDGE MAKING ORDERS:	LOCKHART J.
DATE ORDERS MADE:	13 JUNE 1989
WHERE ORDERS MADE:	SYDNEY

granted leave to file in Court a notice of motion seeking to	respondents to the proceeding have today sought and been
add Mr. Peter Arnott as a party and certain orders intended to have him adjudged guilty of contempt of court in connection with this proceeding.
The first respondent, the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation for the Commonwealth of Australia, has taken this course rather than commence a separate proceeding for

I	c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s and t h e p reced ing two
( 2 ) pages a r e a t r u e copy of	t h e reasons

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr. Agius
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Australian Government Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondents:	Mr. Lind
Solicitors for the Respondents:	Allen, Allen & Hemsley
Date of Hearing:	13 July 1989
Date of Judgment:	13 July 1989