//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2026] NSWSC 1084
Supreme Court of NSW
2026-09-24
Elkaim AJ
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Rypinski [2026] NSWSC 1084
Hearing dates: 24 September 2026
Date of orders: 24 September 2026
Decision date: 24 September 2026
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Elkaim AJ
Decision: 1. Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,389,367.77.
2. The defendant is to pay pre-judgment interest, in addition to the judgment sum, in the amount of $114,052.92.
3. The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords: TAXES AND DUTIES — collection and recovery of taxes — director penalties for unpaid PAYG tax, superannuation guarantee charges and GST — unpaid personal income tax — no defence pleaded under s 269-35 of Schedule 1 to the (Cth) and no evidence filed by defendant — evidence facilitated by s 350-10 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) — no issue of principle — able to proceed pursuant to r 29.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Legislation Cited: Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), Sch 1, ss 269-35, 350-10, 350-12
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 29.7
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Plaintiff)
Slawomir Rypinski (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
G Adams (Plaintiff)
Solicitors:
Australian Taxation Office (Plaintiff)
File Number(s): 2025/313666
Publication restriction: No
The proceedings were commenced with the filing of a statement of claim on 15 August 2025. The plaintiff is the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation. The defendant is an individual who is alleged to be liable for the payment of tax arising from his position as a director of a company called Next Level Joinery Pty Ltd (the company). There is also a claim for the defendant’s unpaid personal income tax together with interest.
The company was registered on 3 July 2017. The defendant became a director of the company on 29 January 2018. A liquidator was appointed following a creditors voluntary winding up, on 23 March 2026.
As at 23 September 2026, the following amounts were said to be owing by the defendant to the plaintiff:
$790,836.44 for director’s penalties for unpaid pay-as-you-go withholding tax (PAYGW).
$53,293.97 for director’s penalties for unpaid superannuation guarantee charges (SGC).
$464,717 for director’s penalties for unpaid goods and services taxes (GST).
$80,520.36 for unpaid personal income tax and general interest charges.
A defence was filed on behalf of the defendant on 22 December 2025. With some exceptions, the defence does not admit or denies each paragraph of the statement of claim. The exceptions are that:
The defendant admits that he was a director of the company;
The company lodged a superannuation guarantee statement for the quarter commencing 1 April 2024;
He was a director of the company before the end of each “Due Day” for the purpose of the company’s obligations in respect of the superannuation guarantee charge; and
Notices of assessment in respect of income tax were served on him.
I note this defence does not appear to be a defence pleaded under s 269-35 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth).
I also note the defendant specifically denies that he has failed to pay the income tax that he is alleged to owe.
The defendant’s solicitors filed a Notice of Ceasing to Act on 17 June 2026. No evidence has been filed on behalf of the defendant to substantiate any of the denials made in the defence.
The defendant did not appear at the hearing. This enabled me to proceed pursuant to r 29.7 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).
The plaintiff’s evidence is made up the affidavits of Ms Bhavishhaben Hansalpara dated 23 September 2026 and Mr Hayden Waterlow also dated 23 September 2026. Each of the affidavits has an attached exhibit. Ms Hansalpara is an Australian public servant employed in the Frontline Compliance section of the Australian Taxation Office. Mr Waterlow is also an Australian public servant but is employed in the Litigation and Legal Services section of the Australian Taxation Office.
In the exhibit attached to Ms Hansalpara’s affidavit there are certificates of debt which state the amounts owed by the defendant to the Commissioner for the tax-related liabilities which appear in paragraph 1 of each certificate.
The certificates conform with s 350-10 in Schedule 1 of the Taxation Administration Act. The details in the certificate, as described in s 350-12 of Schedule 1, have the status of prima facie evidence of these matters.
When taken with the updated statement from Ms Hansalpara that no payments to reduce the debt have been made, and that the notices of assessment (as described in s 350-12(2)(c) of Schedule 1) have been served, the certificates are sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to the orders that it seeks. This conclusion of course rests on there being no evidence, as is the case here, from the defendant to challenge any of the matters contained in the certificates.
The total tax liability is $1,389,367.77. Judgment will be entered for this sum. An order will also be made for the payment of pre-judgment interest, as calculated by Mr Waterlow in the sum of $114,052.92. Obviously, the defendant will be ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.
I make the following orders:
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,389,367.77.
The defendant is to pay pre-judgment interest, in addition to the judgment sum, in the amount of $114,052.92.
The defendant is to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.
**********
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation
Rypinski