Russell v Taxation Review Authority

The applicants, J G Russell and others, sought conditional leave to appeal to the Privy Council from the judgment of the Court of Appeal delivered on 26 November 2001. This judgment dismissed the appeal from the High Court's judgment that struck out one cause of action for judicial review of a decision by the Taxation Review Authority (TRA). It also upheld stays of applications for judicial review of decisions of the TRA in two other cases and struck out a claim in the equitable jurisdiction for an order for discovery in a matter before the TRA. The applicants argued that the decision of the Court of Appeal involved questions of law of great general or public importance, warranting submission to the Privy Council for decision.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the applicants could show that the questions involved were of such importance that they ought to be submitted to the Privy Council. The applicants argued that the appeal decision was confined to the issues then raised and determined and should not preclude a new challenge on natural justice grounds. However, the Court of Appeal held that the decision in issue did not determine that the relevant assessments were correctly made, and the approach taken was consistent with the Privy Council's decision in Miller v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue.

The applicants also sought to appeal against an order staying two other causes of action, which were claims for orders by way of judicial review of decisions of the TRA on challenges to separate assessments. Fisher J held that the grounds advanced for review could be taken in appeals which have been or will be brought. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision and stated that it was a decision well open to Fisher J in the exercise of his discretion. The applicants also sought to appeal against the refusal to interfere with the order of Fisher J striking out another cause of action seeking an order from the High Court in its equitable jurisdiction that the Commissioner give discovery in proceedings before the TRA.

The Court of Appeal held that there were no questions of law meeting the requirements of the rule for the grant of conditional leave. The application was dismissed, and the respondents were entitled to costs.

This case illustrates the difficulty in showing that questions of law of great general or public importance are involved in an appeal from the Court of Appeal to the Privy Council. The Court of Appeal held that the questions involved in this case were not of sufficient importance to warrant submission to the Privy Council for decision. The Court also held that the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the High Court were consistent with the approach taken by the Privy Council in similar cases.