Royal Australia Investments Pty Ltd v. The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia [1988] FCA 54

directions hearing which was held after the notice had been

served, criticise that specification as otiose or as comprehending documents which were not relevant to an issue and therefore not discoverable. He did seek an order, pursuant to 0.15 R.3, that discovery by the applicant be not required. His submission was that when the respondent was engaged in making the assessment, and

when he was considering the applicant's objection against the

assessment, which forms the subject of the appeal he had available to him in ss. 262A, 263 and 264 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, adequate means of obtaining knowledge af all the documents which might be relevant to a determination of the questions which will be in issue in the appeal. It was, in the submission of counsel, inappropriate and oppressive of the taxpayer that an administrator armed with such powers should have, without special

In my opinion the considerations advanced on the applicant's behalf do not Justify denial of discovery in accordance with the Court's Rules. Whatever may, or should, have happened before the decision of the respondent which is the subject of the appeal was made, the parties are now litigants in a proceeding in the Court's original jurisdiction. Discovery is a means of ensuring effective presentation of the case for each party, and also, as Menzies J. observed in L'Estrange v. Federal

Commissioner of Taxation (1973) 73 A.T.C. 4061, a means of

avoiding the delay and inconvenience which is likely to attend a hearing at which particular relevant documents are seen by one

*I decline to give the direction sought by counsel for

I certify that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the

Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Jenkinson.

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. J.W. de Wijn Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. G.T. Pagone

Solicitor for the Respondent Australian Government Solicitor