Wannberg v Administrative Review Tribunal [2026] FCA 61

This proceeding concerns an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal affirming a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation disallowing an objection the applicant made to a private ruling.
As a consequence of correspondence passing between the Court and the parties relating to case management of the proceeding, orders were made on 10 December 2025 to treat an email message from the applicant to the Court as an interlocutory application for orders to the effect that all hearings in the proceeding be dealt with without an oral hearing. The applicant was also ordered to file and serve an affidavit and outline of submissions in support of that application. The applicant sent a number of emails to the Court, but did not file any affidavit or written submissions in compliance with the orders. The Court has also received correspondence from the Commissioner to the effect he does not oppose the orders the applicant seeks.
Taking into account the correspondence from the parties to the Court, I am satisfied that the applicant's interlocutory application may be dealt with, at least in a preliminary manner and for the purposes of the orders made today, without an oral hearing.
In substance, through correspondence with the Court, the applicant submits that he suffers from certain mental illness. He submits that oral hearings are likely to aggravate his symptoms and create a risk that he will commit suicide or self-harm in some other form. As the applicant has not filed any affidavit, there is no evidence before the Court in support of these submissions. Nonetheless, having regard to the contents of the communications with the Court and the notice of appeal, there are grounds for considering that there is merit in the applicant's submissions.
Section 20A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) provides that the Court may deal with a matter without an oral hearing if satisfied, amongst other things, that the determination of the matter would not be significantly aided by an oral hearing because there is no real issue of fact relevant to determination of the matter and the legal arguments in relation to the matter can be dealt with adequately by written submissions. Having regard to the nature of the proceeding, no issue of fact will arise for determination. However, I am not satisfied, at this time, that the Court would not be aided by an oral hearing on the questions of law that are or may be raised in the proceeding. I am also not satisfied that the applicant and the Commissioner would be accorded appropriate procedural fairness in the absence of an oral hearing.
For the foregoing reasons, an order dispensing with all oral hearings will not be made at this stage of the proceeding. Subject to further orders, the interlocutory application will be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed. If a date is not fixed it may be dealt with at some later time without an oral hearing. A decision on the extent to which an oral hearing is necessary may be made after the parties have completed all interlocutory steps required to get the matter ready for a final hearing. In the meantime, if these steps are addressed through consent orders, it may not be necessary for there to be any oral case management, interlocutory or other hearings.
Further, from the contents of the communications from the applicant to the Court and the notice of appeal, there are also grounds for considering that the applicant will have difficulty complying with case management orders, the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) as are applicable to this proceeding, and formulating a coherent and concise notice of appeal and written submissions in support of the appeal without the assistance of a legal practitioner or an oral hearing at which the Court's process and procedure can be explained to the applicant. If the applicant were to appoint a legal representative he would, of course, be able to appear at any oral hearing through that representative without the need to attend and appear in Court personally and the Court's process and procedure could be explained to him by the legal practitioner.
Taking into account the overarching purpose of the civil practice and procedure provisions described in s 37M of the Federal Court Act, the applicant's desire to avoid appearing at an oral hearing before the Court in person or by video link, and the reservations I have expressed regarding the adequacy and fairness of determining the appeal without an oral hearing, this proceeding would be more quickly, inexpensively and efficiently resolved if the applicant is legally represented. Thus, in the particular circumstances of this case, the Court will refer the applicant to a lawyer for legal assistance in accordance with Div 4.2 of the Rules.

Wannberg v Administrative Review Tribunal [2026] FCA 61 | Case summary | Zoe

This proceeding concerns an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Review Tribunal affirming a decision of the Commissioner of Taxation disallowing an objection the applicant made to a private ruling.
As a consequence of correspondence passing between the Court and the parties relating to case management of the proceeding, orders were made on 10 December 2025 to treat an email message from the applicant to the Court as an interlocutory application for orders to the effect that all hearings in the proceeding be dealt with without an oral hearing. The applicant was also ordered to file and serve an affidavit and outline of submissions in support of that application. The applicant sent a number of emails to the Court, but did not file any affidavit or written submissions in compliance with the orders. The Court has also received correspondence from the Commissioner to the effect he does not oppose the orders the applicant seeks.
Taking into account the correspondence from the parties to the Court, I am satisfied that the applicant's interlocutory application may be dealt with, at least in a preliminary manner and for the purposes of the orders made today, without an oral hearing.
In substance, through correspondence with the Court, the applicant submits that he suffers from certain mental illness. He submits that oral hearings are likely to aggravate his symptoms and create a risk that he will commit suicide or self-harm in some other form. As the applicant has not filed any affidavit, there is no evidence before the Court in support of these submissions. Nonetheless, having regard to the contents of the communications with the Court and the notice of appeal, there are grounds for considering that there is merit in the applicant's submissions.
Section 20A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) provides that the Court may deal with a matter without an oral hearing if satisfied, amongst other things, that the determination of the matter would not be significantly aided by an oral hearing because there is no real issue of fact relevant to determination of the matter and the legal arguments in relation to the matter can be dealt with adequately by written submissions. Having regard to the nature of the proceeding, no issue of fact will arise for determination. However, I am not satisfied, at this time, that the Court would not be aided by an oral hearing on the questions of law that are or may be raised in the proceeding. I am also not satisfied that the applicant and the Commissioner would be accorded appropriate procedural fairness in the absence of an oral hearing.
For the foregoing reasons, an order dispensing with all oral hearings will not be made at this stage of the proceeding. Subject to further orders, the interlocutory application will be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed. If a date is not fixed it may be dealt with at some later time without an oral hearing. A decision on the extent to which an oral hearing is necessary may be made after the parties have completed all interlocutory steps required to get the matter ready for a final hearing. In the meantime, if these steps are addressed through consent orders, it may not be necessary for there to be any oral case management, interlocutory or other hearings.
Further, from the contents of the communications from the applicant to the Court and the notice of appeal, there are also grounds for considering that the applicant will have difficulty complying with case management orders, the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) as are applicable to this proceeding, and formulating a coherent and concise notice of appeal and written submissions in support of the appeal without the assistance of a legal practitioner or an oral hearing at which the Court's process and procedure can be explained to the applicant. If the applicant were to appoint a legal representative he would, of course, be able to appear at any oral hearing through that representative without the need to attend and appear in Court personally and the Court's process and procedure could be explained to him by the legal practitioner.
Taking into account the overarching purpose of the civil practice and procedure provisions described in s 37M of the Federal Court Act, the applicant's desire to avoid appearing at an oral hearing before the Court in person or by video link, and the reservations I have expressed regarding the adequacy and fairness of determining the appeal without an oral hearing, this proceeding would be more quickly, inexpensively and efficiently resolved if the applicant is legally represented. Thus, in the particular circumstances of this case, the Court will refer the applicant to a lawyer for legal assistance in accordance with Div 4.2 of the Rules.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)