Esso Australia Resources Pty Ltd (ACN 091 829 819) v Commissioner of Taxation

Federal Court of Australia|2010-02-05|Before: Sundberg J

Number of paragraphs: 5

Counsel for the Applicant in VID 1024-1035, 1312-1313 of 2004: J De Wijn QC and A Broadfoot

Counsel for the Applicant in VID 1036-1045, 1047 of 2004, 1120-1131 of 2007: DJ O'Calloghan SC

Counsel for the Respondent: G Davies QC and S Sharpley

Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

GENERAL DIVISION VID 1024 of 2004, VID 1025 of 2004, VID 1026 of 2004, VID 1027 of 2004, VID 1028 of 2004, VID 1029 of 2004, VID 1030 of 2004, VID 1031 of 2004, VID 1032 of 2004, VID 1033 of 2004, VID 1034 of 2004, VID 1035 of 2004, VID 1312 of 2004, VID 1313 of 2004

BETWEEN: ESSO AUSTRALIA RESOURCES PTY LTD (ACN 091 829 819)

GENERAL DIVISION VID 1036 of 2004, VID 1037 of 2004, VID 1038 of 2004, VID 1039 of 2004, VID 1040 of 2004, VID 1041 of 2004, VID 1042 of 2004, VID 1043 of 2004, VID 1044 of 2004, VID 1045 of 2004, VID 1047 of 2004, VID 1120 of 2007, VID 1121 of 2007, VID 1122 of 2007, VID 1123 of 2007, VID 1124 of 2007, VID 1125 of 2007, VID 1126 of 2007, VID 1127 of 2007, VID 1128 of 2007, VID 1129 of 2007, VID 1130 of 2007, VID 1131 of 2007

BETWEEN: BHP BILLITON PETROLEUM (BASS STRAIT) PTY LTD (ABN 29 004 228 004)

The respondent's application ore tenus for leave to amend his Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions be dismissed.
The respondent's application ore tenus for further discovery be dismissed.
The respondent pay the applicants' costs of the applications. Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of individual orders by file number can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court's website.

BETWEEN: ESSO AUSTRALIA RESOURCES PTY LTD (ACN 091 829 819)

BETWEEN: BHP BILLITON PETROLEUM (BASS STRAIT) PTY LTD (ABN 29 004 228 004)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The Commissioner has applied to amend his Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions (SFIC) by adding in par 40A an alternative basis for the claim that the payments are assessable receipts, namely that they fall within s 28(b)(i) of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987 (Cth). I do not propose to grant leave to amend. My reasons are these. First, the possible application of section 28 was raised by Esso in its notice of objection. Despite that, the issue was not taken up in the Commissioner's notice of disallowance. It cannot be accounted a slip on the Commissioner's part because it was plainly drawn to his attention in the notice of objection. 2 Secondly, the application to amend is made very late. I regard it as unfair for the Commissioner to seek to bring s 28(b)(i) into the proceeding at this late stage. I accept what Mr de Wijn QC says about the possibility, or even probability, that further evidence might be required when the matter is investigated by his client. The Commissioner's desire to rely on s 28(b)(i) first came to the applicants' attention yesterday morning. 3 Thirdly, the Commissioner has offered no explanation for the lateness of this application. The importance of an explanation is explained by French CJ in Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175 at [5] and [30] and in the joint judgment at [103]. 4 For those reasons the application to amend is refused. 5 The Commissioner has sought further discovery. He has requested copies of witness statements, exhibits filed by claimants, submissions filed by claimants, and the transcript in relation to the interim award dated 6 October 1994 and the award dated 30 November 1984, in which the applicant Esso and BHP Petroleum (Bass Strait) Pty Ltd were the claimants and Generation Victoria was the respondent. I have been taken to the issues in the present proceedings and to some of the authorities dealing with the identification of relevance for discovery purposes. The pleadings in this case are the parties' respective SFICs. I am not satisfied that what the claimants may have said in the arbitration proceedings that took place 16 years ago will assist me in deciding the issues in this case. There are other reasons for disallowing the application which are essentially those that I expressed in relation to the application to amend. The application for further discovery is refused. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Sundberg.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (16 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (1)

Cited By (1)