Van Grieken v Veilands

Case [1991] FCA 613

Re: ANTHONY VAN GRIEKEN
And: ANDREW VEILANDS; DAVID KNAPP; JOHN HALL; GREGORY HARPER and BARRY AYRES
No. G243 of 1991
FED No. 613
Administrative Law
91 ATC 4685/22 ATR 630/103 ALR 233
(1991) 25 ALD 655 (extracts)

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Davies(1), Burchett(1) and Hill(1) JJ.
CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - procedural fairness - whether communications between Australian Taxation Office and Taxation Relief Board generated a reasonable suspicion of unfairness - whether supply of factual information to Board without knowledge of one party a denial of procedural fairness - whether letter written by one member of the Board a decision of the Board.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth): s.265

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 3:10:1991

Counsel and Solicitors S.J. McMillan instructed by
for Appellant: J.W. Walker and D.K.L. Raphael

Counsel and Solicitors R.M. Henderson instructed by the
for Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDER

The appeal be dismissed.

The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

The appellant, Mr Anthony Van Grieken, appeals against the judgment of a judge of this court, Gummow J., dismissing an application brought by him to this court under the provisions of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ("the ADJR Act").

  1. The application sought review of what were said to be three decisions of the respondents or one or more of them, they being at the relevant times the Chairman and other members of the Taxation Relief Board established pursuant to s.265 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) ("the Act"). The decisions challenged were a decision made on 9 May 1990 and communicated to the appellant on 14 May 1990, and two further alleged decisions being decisions communicated to the appellant by letters dated 17 August 1990 and 25 September 1990.

  2. The May 1990 decision refused the appellant relief from his liability to pay income tax in the sum of $19,660.99 in respect of the years of income 1978-1985 respectively. The August and September 1990 alleged decisions arose out of requests by the appellant that the original decision be reconsidered. It seems that after receipt of the letter of 14 May 1990 the appellant had written to the Chairman on 16 May 1990 stating that he had an excess of income over expenditure of only $26.00 per fortnight and that after selling his house and paying out his mortgage he would be left with only $113,000 out of which he would be lucky to purchase an old one bedroom unit. The Board apparently reconsidered the matter, having examined the additional information furnished, and again denied the application for relief. The appellant replied with a letter of 27 August 1990, requesting further reconsideration and disputing a conclusion made by the Board but not putting to the Board any fresh matter.

  3. The result was a letter dated 25…

Continue reading Van Grieken v Veilands

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Grieken, A.V. v. Veilands, A. & Ors [1991] FCA 613 (91 ATC 4685; 22 ATR 630; 103 ALR 233; (1991) 25 ALD 655)
Case
[1991] FCA 613
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Van Grieken v Veilands involved the appellant, Van Grieken, challenging a decision of the Taxation Relief Board concerning a tax assessment. The respondents, Veilands, were the Australian Taxation Office and the Taxation Relief Board. The dispute centred on whether the procedures followed by the Taxation Relief Board were fair and adhered to the principles of procedural fairness. Specifically, Van Grieken contended that there were communications between the Australian Taxation Office and the Board that gave rise to a reasonable suspicion of unfairness. Additionally, Van Grieken argued that the supply of factual information to the Board without their knowledge breached procedural fairness, as did a letter written by a single member of the Board that Van Grieken perceived as a decision of the entire Board.

The court was required to determine whether the administrative processes employed by the Taxation Relief Board were fair and whether there was a denial of procedural fairness by not informing Van Grieken of certain information and by a letter from a single Board member. The legal issues thus involved an examination of the principles of procedural fairness, particularly in the context of administrative law, and whether the actions of the Board and the Australian Taxation Office breached those principles.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that the Board had not acted in a way that breached procedural fairness. The court found that there was no reasonable suspicion of unfairness arising from the communications between the Australian Taxation Office and the Board. Furthermore, the court determined that supplying factual information to the Board without Van Grieken's knowledge did not constitute a denial of procedural fairness. The court also concluded that the letter from a single member of the Board did not amount to a decision of the Board and therefore did not affect the fairness of the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, and Van Grieken was ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

The appellant pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.