//
[1984] FCA 247
General information, not legal advice.
Federal Court of Australia
1984-07-27
Bcaumont J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English brief of this judgment and email it to you: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
TERRITORY No.W929 of 1983 BETWEEN: PETER LEOPOLD CLYNE Applicant AND: JOHN WILLIAM O'BRIEN WILLIAM EDWARD ANDREW and DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondents ORDER Judge making order: Beaumont, J. Date order made: 27 July 1984. Where made: Sydney. THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
14 March 1984, order that Peter Leopold Clyne pay one- half of the costs of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. 2. That in respect of the proceedings the subject of the decision in the reasons for judgment dated
27 June 1984, order that Peter Leopold Clyne pay two-thirds
of the costs of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation.
TERRITORY No. W929 of 1983 BETWEEN: PETER LEOPOLD CLYNE Applicant AND: JOHN WILLIAM O'BRIEN WILLIAM EDWARD ANDREW and DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Respondents CORAM: Beaumont, J. DATED: 27 July 1984
In this matter an application has been made on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation for costs an respect of two aspects of the proceedings. The first application is made in respect of the decision the subject of reasons for judgment dated 14 March 1984. In that matter, it 1s, I think, possible to divide this aspect of the proceedings into two separate parts. The first
1s the question of whether the Court had power to grant
leave to intervene. The second 1s, assuming power, whether 1t was appropriate as a matter of discretion that
As to the first point, this was a question of law raised by Mr. Clyne which was decided adversely to him and
in my view, costs should follow the event in that behalf.
As to the second point, namely leave to intervene itself, in this regard the Commissioner in a sense 1S seeking an indulgence and in any event he had limited success in the sense that I imposed a number of conditions upon that leave being granted. On the whole, therefore,
I think that, so far as that decision, being the decision of 14 March, 1s concerned, the proper order that I should make 21s to order that Mr. Clyne pay one half of the costs of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. I have endeavoured in this respect to isolate first of all the legal points
on the one hand and the leave to intervene on the other, and it seems to me a fair way of doing that 1s to give
The Commissioner also applies for costs in respect of the substantive application itself which was the subject of reasons for judgment dated 27 June 1984. In this matter, as I had foreshadowed in my reasons for judgment dated 14 March 1984, the Deputy Commissioner appeared at its own risk as to costs. I had in mind in expressing this
reservation at that stage that, as I saw it, the trustees
had the primary responsibility for the conduct of opposition, if it was thought appropriate, to the application. As events have turned out, two matters have occurred: first, the Deputy Commissioner had the substantial conduct of the running of the opposition case, and secondly, Mr. Clyne had at least some
On the whole, therefore, I am of the view that the appropriate order that I should make is that I should order that Mr. Clyne pay two-thirds of the costs of the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation of the proceedings, the subject of the reasons for judgment
I hereby certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy herein of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice Bcaumont.