Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Power Assets Holdings Limited

RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES 5 The procedures governing service of originating applications outside of the jurisdiction are well established. Rule 10.43 of the Rules provides: (1) Service of an originating application on a person in a foreign country is effective for the purpose of a proceeding only if: (a) the Court has given leave under subrule (2) before the application is served; or (b) the Court confirms the service under subrule (6); or (c) the person served waives any objection to the service by filing a notice of address for service without also making an application under rule 13.01. (2) A party may apply to the Court for leave to serve an originating application on a person in a foreign country in accordance with a convention, the Hague Convention or the law of the foreign country. (3) The application under subrule (2) must be accompanied by an affidavit stating: (a) the name of the foreign country where the person to be served is or is likely to be; and (b) the proposed method of service; and (c) that the proposed method of service is permitted by: (i) if a convention applies - the convention; or (ii) if the Hague Convention applies - the Hague Convention; or (iii) in any other case - the law of the foreign country. (4) For subrule (2), the party must satisfy the Court that: (a) the Court has jurisdiction in the proceeding; and (b) the proceeding is of a kind mentioned in rule 10.42; and (c) the party has a prima facie case for all or any of the relief claimed in the proceeding. … (Emphasis added.) 6 Rule 10.42 provides that "an originating application, or an application under Pt 7 of these Rules, may be served on a person in a foreign country in a proceeding that consists of, or includes, any one or more of the kinds of proceeding mentioned in the following table …". Item 1 of that table is a "[p]roceeding based on a cause of action arising in Australia".

APPLICATION OF LEGAL PRINCIPLES 7 Pursuant to r 10.43(4), three requirements must be satisfied. First, that the Court has jurisdiction in the proceeding. Second, that the DCOT has established a prima facie case for service of the originating process outside of the jurisdiction. Third, that the DCOT's claim for unpaid tax and administrative penalties falls within one of the items in the table in r 10.42.

Jurisdiction 8 Pursuant to s 255-5(2) of Sch 1 to the TAA, the DCOT may sue "in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover an amount of a *tax-related liability that remains unpaid after it has become due and payable." Subsection (1) provides that an amount of a "*tax-related liability that is due and payable" is (a) "a debt due to the Commonwealth" and (b) "payable to the Commissioner". 9 Here, the amounts of income tax and administrative penalties sought by the DCOT are "tax-related liabilities" within s 255-1 of Sch 1 to the TAA: items 37, 70 and 140 of the table in s 250-10(2) of Sch 1 to the TAA; see also Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Broadbeach Properties Pty Ltd (2008) 237 CLR 473 at [28] and [38]. The amounts became due and payable by reason of the notices of assessments made by the DCOT: s 5-5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) (the 1997 Act). The question is whether the Federal Court is a court of "competent jurisdiction". 10 Section 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) (the Judiciary Act) provides: The original jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia also includes jurisdiction in any matter: … (c) arising under any laws made by the Parliament, other than a matter in respect of which a criminal prosecution is instituted or any other criminal matter. 11 The DCOT's claim in these proceedings is for the recovery of a "tax-related liability" pursuant to s 255-5 of Sch 1 to the TAA. Such a claim is within the jurisdiction of this Court by reason of s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act as a matter arising under a law of the Commonwealth, namely the TAA: see Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Chemical Trustee Ltd (No 8) [2013] FCA 494 at [12]-[14]; LNC Industries Limited v B.M.W. (Australia) Limited (1983) 151 CLR 575 at 581. 12 This proceeding is of a kind mentioned in r 10.42. The DCOT's application for recovery of a "tax-related liability" is made pursuant to s 255-5 of Sch 1 to the TAA. The proceeding is, therefore, a proceeding based on a cause of action arising in Australia within the ambit of item 1 of the table in r 10.42: see Commissioner of Taxation v Ma (1999) 92 FCR 569 at [15]; Commissioner of Taxation v Regent Pacific Group Limited [2013] FCA 36 at [23].

Establishment of a prima facie case? 13 The requirement to demonstrate a prima facie case in this context is not particularly onerous. The question is whether, on the material before the Court, inferences were open which, if translated into final findings of fact, would support the relief claimed: see Ho v Akai (in liq) (2006) 24 ACLC 1526 at [10]. 14 The DCOT filed an affidavit sworn on 17 July 2013 by Maria Victoria Llorca, a Case Officer employed in the Debt Section of the Australian Taxation Office (the Llorca Affidavit) which annexed, inter alia, a copy of the notices of default assessment and penalty notices. Also annexed to that affidavit is an evidentiary certificate pursuant to s 255-45 of Sch 1 to the TAA. The Llorca Affidavit establishes a prima facie case for service of the originating process outside of the jurisdiction.

Location of Power Assets and method of service 15 Where the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Proceedings (15 November 1965) [2010] ATS 23 (the Convention) applies, the proposed method of service must be permitted by the Convention: r 10.43(3)(c)(ii) of the Rules. 16 Australia acceded to the Convention on 15 March 2010. The Convention entered into force for Australia on 1 November 2010. The People's Republic of China is a party to the Convention and the Convention applies to the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. 17 Article 10 of the Convention states: Provided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with - (a) the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad, … Article 10(a) is described as the "postal channel": see also Outline, Hague Service Convention, November 2009 at pgs 1, 2 and Chart 2. 18 The DCOT proposes to serve Power Assets in Hong Kong by international registered post with return receipt: see [1] above. The Llorca Affidavit refers to a search of the information kept by the Registrar of Companies of the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong. That search was conducted via the online Integrated Companies Registry Information System. It disclosed that Power Assets was incorporated in Hong Kong on 9 April 1976, with its registered address being located at Hongkong Electric Centre, at 44 Kennedy Road in Hong Kong. 19 Annexed to the Llorca Affidavit was an extract from the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (www.hcch.net) "China (Hong Kong) Other Authority (Art. 18) & practical information". That extract indicates that the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong has no opposition to Art 10(a) of the Convention, which deals with service by post. 20 For the purposes of this ex parte application, I accept that the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong has not opposed Art 10(a) of the Convention. I also accept that service by post is "permitted by" and "in accordance with" the Convention: see [5] and [17] above. 21 The Llorca Affidavit disclosed that Power Assets had retained an Australian solicitor in relation to these matters but that the solicitor did not have instructions to accept service of these proceedings. In the circumstances, it is appropriate that a copy of the documents also be sent to that solicitor.

CONCLUSION 22 For those reasons, the following orders will be made: 1. Pursuant to r 17.04 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (the Rules), the DCOT be granted leave to dispense with service on Power Assets of the interlocutory application filed on 18 July 2013 and for the hearing of that interlocutory application to proceed ex parte in the absence of Power Assets. 2. Pursuant to r 10.43 of the Rules, the DCOT be granted leave to serve on Power Assets in Hong Kong by international registered post with return receipt to Power Asset's registered office at Hongkong Electric Centre, 44 Kennedy Road, Hong Kong: (a) the Originating Application and Statement of Claim filed on 19 June 2013; (b) any amended Statement of Claim; (c) the DCOT's genuine steps statement filed on 19 June 2013; (d) the DCOT's Interlocutory Application filed on 18 July 2013; (e) the Affidavit of Maria Victoria Llorca sworn on 17 July 2013; (f) these reasons for decision; and (g) a copy of these Orders. 3. The DCOT forward a copy of the documents listed in paragraph 2 of this Order to Mr Michael Clough of King & Wood Mallesons, Level 50, Bourke Place, 600 Bourke Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3000. 4. Power Assets file a Notice of Address for Service in accordance with r 5.02 of the Rules within 28 days after service of the Originating Application upon it in accordance with Order 2. 23 Assuming service on Power Assets can be effected reasonably promptly, the matter will be listed for further directions on 30 August 2013. The costs of the interlocutory application are reserved. I certify that the preceding twenty-three (23) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gordon.