Very Important Business Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation)

[2020] AATA 1646

Very Important Business Pty Ltd and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2020] AATA 1646 (2 June 2020)

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL        )

)         No: 2019/0129

TAXATION AND COMMERCIAL DIVISION       )

Re: Very Important Business Pty Ltd

Applicant

And: Commissioner of Taxation

Respondent

CORRIGENDUM TO DECISION

TRIBUNAL:  Senior Member Robert Olding

DATE OF CORRIGENDUM:      4 June 2020

PLACE:  Melbourne

The Tribunal directs the Registrar, pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to alter the text of the decision on the Applicant’s request for a direction to replace any reference to “2 June 2019” with “2 June 2020”.

......................[sgd].............................................
Senior Member

Division:TAXATION AND COMMERCIAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2019/0129

Re:Very Important Business Pty Ltd

APPLICANT

AndCommissioner of Taxation

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member Robert Olding

Date:2 June 2019

Place:Melbourne

The direction sought by the Applicant’s representative which would compel Jeffrey Leahy to enter the State of Queensland is refused.

...........................[sgd].............................................

Senior Member R J Olding

Catchwords

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – where COVID-19 restrictions prohibit entry to Queensland – where an exemption applies for travel required to give effect to an order of a court or tribunal – where applicant requested a direction that would compel him to travel to Queensland to prepare for a hearing – request to give direction refused

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 33(1), 33(2), 33(2A)
Public Health Direction – Border Restrictions (No. 5) (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member R J Olding

1. The Applicant has requested the Tribunal to direct its representative, Mr Jeffrey Leahy of Amarc Business Solutions Pty Ltd who resides in Victoria, to “attend [a] case briefing and review with Mr Jordan Reeves” who resides in Queensland. Visiting Queensland to comply with such a direction would fall under an exception to the current COVID-19 related restrictions on entry to that State.

   BACKGROUND

2. This application for review was filed in the Tribunal’s Melbourne registry.  The Applicant is based in Victoria.  In ordinary times, the hearing would take place in Melbourne. Due to COVID-19, it is scheduled to be conducted remotely using the Microsoft Teams platform.

3. Mr Leahy advised that Mr Reeves “is now the Director and Responsible Officer of Amarc Business Solutions Pty Ltd” and that the purpose of the visit would be to bring to Mr Reeves all of the documents in this matter and other matters in which the Applicant is involved and to discuss the history and key aspects of the matters. Mr Leahy also advised that he is not able to send the documents by post and discuss them with Mr Reeves by telephone/videoconference due to the large quantity of material.

4. Entry to Queensland is currently restricted under the Public Health Direction – Border Restrictions (No. 5) (Qld) published by Queensland’s Chief Health Officer on 1 May 2020.  There is an exception for an “exempt person” which is relevantly defined in the table at clause 11 of the Direction in these terms:

   “8. Persons entering Queensland on compassionate grounds or under compulsion of law
   
   

   . . .
   
   3. Any person who

   . . .

   c. is required to enter Queensland under orders of any Court or Tribunal of Australia or to give effect to orders of the Court or Tribunal.”

   SHOULD THE TRIBUNAL GIVE THE DIRECTION SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT?

5. The Tribunal may give directions “as to the procedure to be followed at or in connection with the hearing of a proceeding”. The purposes for which a direction may be given include the conduct of a proceeding with as much expedition as statutory requirements and proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permits.[1]

   [1] Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 33(1), 33(2), 33(2A).

6. Subject to any such directions, generally speaking an applicant is free to prepare their case as they see fit. Whether it is desirous that Mr Leahy to travel to Queensland to assist in preparation of the case or that could, for example, be handled by Mr Reeves travelling to Victoria where documents are apparently located, or by the use of video or other technology, is a matter for the Applicant. 

7. In circumstances where there is no connection between the application for review and the State of Queensland, other than the location of an officer of the Applicant’s representative; relevant documents are apparently held in Victoria; there is no restriction on interstate travel to Victoria; and Queensland’s Chief Medical Officer has for reasons of public health restricted entry to Queensland, I am not satisfied that it is within the power the Tribunal, or if so an appropriate exercise of such power, to compel Mr Leahy to travel to Queensland. I must therefore refuse to give the direction sought by Mr Leahy.

I certify that the preceding 7 (seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member R J Olding

......................[sgd].................................................

Associate

Dated: 2 June 2019

Date of hearing:	On the papers
Applicant’s representative:	J Leahy, Amarc Business Solutions Pty Ltd