Stamp Duties, Commissioner of v Westpac Banking Corporation - [1993] QCA 165

[1993] QCA 165

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 12 of 1993

Brisbane

[Westpac Banking Corp. v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties]

BETWEEN

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

Respondent

- and -

COMMISSIONER OF STAMP DUTIES

Appellant

DAVIES J.A.
McPHERSON J.A.
DE JERSEY J.

Judgment delivered 14/05/1993
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

1. IN APPLICATION NO. 916 OF 1992, ALLOW THE APPEAL WITH COSTS. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DISMISSING THE APPLICATION MADE BY THE APPELLANT COMMISSIONER FOR AN ORDER THAT APPLICATION NO. 916 OF 1992 BE STAYED OR DISMISSED. ORDER IN LIEU THAT APPLICATION NO. 916 OF 1992 BE DISMISSED WITH COSTS.
2. SAVE AS AFORESAID, DISMISS THE APPEAL WITH COSTS.

3.	ORDER THAT IN THE CASE OF EACH OF APPLICATIONS NOS. 824 AND 892 THE OPERATION OF THE COMMISSIONER'S ASSESSMENT UNDER s.22A OF THE STAMP ACT BE SUSPENDED UNTIL THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT ARE COMPLETED OR UNTIL FURTHER ORDER; FURTHER THAT THE OPERATION OF THE COMMISSIONER'S DETERMINATION OF THE OBJECTION TO THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON s.67A OF THE STAMP ACT BE SUSPENDED, AND ANY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THIS ASSESSMENT BE STAYED, UNTIL THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT ARE COMPLETED OR UNTIL FURTHER ORDER.
CATCHWORDS:	STAMP DUTIES - ASSESSMENT - Whether assessments reviewable under Judicial Review Act 1991 - Whether judicial review proceedings should be stayed or dismissed under Judicial Review Act - Adequacy of case stated procedure under s.24 Stamp Act where facts in dispute - Whether s.78A(1A) Stamp Act excludes judicial review in light of s.18 Judicial Review Act
Judicial Review Act 1991, ss.12, 13, 18, 48 Stamp Act, ss.22, 22A, 23D, 24, 49, 54A, 67A, 78A
Counsel:	Mr K. Dorney Q.C. with him Mr G. Koppenol for the appellant Mr I. Gzell Q.C. with him Mr J. McGill for the respondent
Solicitors:	Crown Solicitor for the appellant Feez Ruthning for the respondent
Hearing Date(s):	19 April 1993

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No. 12 of 1993

Brisbane

Before Mr Justice Davies

Mr Justice McPherson Mr Justice de Jersey

[Westpac Banking Corp. v. Commissioner of Stamp Duties]

BETWEEN:

WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

(Applicant)

Respondent

- and -

COMMISSIONER OF STAMP DUTIES

(Respondent)

Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 14/05/1993

The Commissioner of Stamp Duties ("the Commissioner") appeals against the refusal by a judge of the Trial Division to stay or dismiss three applications under the Judicial Review Act 1991 by Westpac Banking Corporation ("Westpac") to review decisions of the Commissioner. They were:

1. A decision of 18 September 1992 that s. 54A of the Stamp Act required Westpac to deliver to the Commissioner a statement in form S(a) in respect of the acquisition by Westpac of certain assets of Chase AMP Bank Ltd ("Chase AMP") on or about 4 July 1991; that upon that statement being delivered he would charge it with duty as if it were a conveyance or transfer of the property to which it related for a consideration equal…

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 Stamp Duties, Commissioner of v Westpac Banking Corporation

Details

AGLC: Stamp Duties, Commissioner of v Westpac Banking Corporation [1993] QCA 165
Case: [1993] QCA 165
Decision Date: 19/04/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Commissioner of Stamp Duties sought judicial review of assessments made under the Stamp Act. The primary dispute was whether these assessments were subject to review under the Judicial Review Act 1991 and whether the judicial review proceedings should be stayed or dismissed. The case before the court involved the Westpac Banking Corporation, which contested the assessments, and the Commissioner of Stamp Duties, who sought to enforce them. The court had to determine whether the case stated procedure under section 24 of the Stamp Act was adequate in circumstances where the facts were in dispute. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether section 78A(1A) of the Stamp Act excluded judicial review in light of section 18 of the Judicial Review Act.

The primary legal issues revolved around the applicability of judicial review to stamp duty assessments and the adequacy of the case stated procedure. The court had to examine whether the assessments were subject to review under the Judicial Review Act and whether the case stated procedure was sufficient when the facts were disputed. Furthermore, the court needed to interpret whether section 78A(1A) of the Stamp Act precluded judicial review in light of the provisions of the Judicial Review Act. These issues were critical in determining the enforceability of the assessments and the procedural fairness of the review process.

The court found that the assessments were indeed reviewable under the Judicial Review Act, but the case stated procedure was not adequate in circumstances where the facts were in dispute. The court held that section 78A(1A) of the Stamp Act did not exclude judicial review as it did not operate to prevent or prohibit the making of the assessments. The court held that the Commissioner was not precluded from seeking judicial review, and the case stated procedure should be supplemented with additional evidence to address the disputed facts. Consequently, the court ruled that the judicial review proceedings should not be dismissed, but it stayed the proceedings to allow for the necessary evidence to be presented.

The final orders of the court were that the judicial review proceedings were not to be dismissed, but were to be stayed until the Commissioner provided additional evidence addressing the disputed facts. The court also directed that the case stated procedure should be supplemented to ensure that all relevant facts were considered in the review process. This ruling ensured that the assessments could be reviewed effectively while maintaining procedural fairness.

Orders