Taxation proceeding - application for dismissal - failure to attend case event

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) - s 72; s 99; s102; s 106

PJFX and Commissioner of Taxation (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 1871 (16 September 2025)

PJFX and Commissioner of Taxation (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 2469 (7 October 2025)

PJFX and Commissioner of Taxation (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 2471 (12 November 2025)

Wright v Administrative Review Tribunal [2025] FCA 1258

1. This application has been the subject of three interlocutory decisions. These reasons assume the reader has knowledge of each interlocutory decision:

(a) PJFX and Commissioner of Taxation (Practice and procedure) (16 September 2025) (the first recusal decision); [1] > > (b) PJFX and Commissioner of Taxation (Practice and procedure) (7 October 2025) (the second recusal decision);[2] and > > (c) PJFX and Commissioner of Taxation (Practice and procedure) (12 November 2025) (the s 106 decision).[3]

2. A related decision of the Federal Court of Australia, Wright v Administrative Review Tribunal[4] per Longbottom J is also relevant to the history of the proceeding.
3. The steps which have led to the Respondent's dismissal application and my reasons for granting the application and dismissing it are set out below.

1. The background to the substantive tax dispute between PJFX and the Respondent is set out in the first recusal decision. As the second recusal decision records, the application was part heard when the second recusal application was made. At that time, the Applicant was represented by solicitors and counsel. The Applicant brought a judicial review application following refusal of the second recusal application and sought an order that the Tribunal's hearing of the application be stayed pending the hearing of the judicial review application by the Federal Court (the stay application). The judgment in Wright records the reasons of Longbottom J for refusal of the stay application.
2. The Applicant has not had had the benefit of legal representation in these proceedings since 17 October 2025 when her former solicitors wrote to the Tribunal to inform they were no longer retained.
3. On 12 November 2025, the Respondent made an oral application for the application to be dismissed under s 99 Administrative Review Tribunal Act (2024) (Cth) (Tribunal Act) (the dismissal application). He requested the dismissal application be determined that same day. I refused that request in the interests of procedural fairness to the Applicant. I instead set down the application for hearing today and directed the Respondent to write to the Applicant informing her of the application, this hearing and his reasons for the application. This he did on 17 November 2025.
4. The Applicant did not appear at today's hearing. The Tribunal twice attempted to contact her by telephone but both calls went to her voicemail. A message was left advising that the Tribunal was calling seeking her appearance at the hearing. There was no response. In the circumstances, the hearing proceeded without her attendance.

99 Tribunal may dismiss application if applicant does not appear

(a) the applicant fails to appear at a Tribunal case event that relates to a proceeding in relation to an application; and

(b) the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event;

Note 1: Tribunal case events include hearings, directions hearings and dispute resolution processes (see the definition of Tribunal case event in section 4).

Note 2: For how to appear at a Tribunal case event, see section 73.

1. The Respondent submits both limbs of the test are met for the following reasons:

(a) the Applicant failed to attend two case management directions hearings on 27 October 2025 and 12 November 2025 and now has also failed to attend a further hearing on 26 November 2025 (collectively, the case events); and > > (b) the Applicant demonstrated awareness of the first and second case events because she informed the Respondent in writing on 22 October 2025 and on 5 November 2025 that she did not intend to progress her application and considered the Tribunal should determine it on the papers (the s 106 application).

2. The Respondent further submits that the Applicant has had adequate notice of the hearing of the dismissal application in light of his correspondence dated 17 November 2025 where he informed her:

the Commissioner will appear at the Dismissal Application and seek that your application be dismissed under section 99 of the Act. That is, your application for review the subject of the Proceeding in its entirety. > > ... > > If you wish to proceed with your application for review the subject of the Proceeding, you are required to attend the Dismissal Application.

3. I am satisfied that the Applicant has now failed to appear before the Tribunal for 3 consecutive case events. From my review of the Tribunal's file, I am also satisfied she received listing notices for each case event[5] and therefore was appropriately notified of each case event for the purposes of s 72 Tribunal Act.
4. For the purposes of s 99 Tribunal Act, I find that the Applicant has failed to appear at a case event/s for which she has received appropriate notice.

The Tribunal has a discretion to dismiss the application

1. The Tribunal has discretion under s 99 Tribunal Act to dismiss a proceeding which meets both limbs of the statutory test. It is therefore necessary for me to consider whether I should exercise that discretion in this case. For the following reasons, I have decided it is appropriate to do so.
2. First, I have taken into consideration the Applicant is not legally represented and so is currently at a disadvantage in the conduct of the application compared to the Respondent, who is represented by solicitors and counsel. I have taken procedural steps to address this imbalance by directing the Respondent to write to the Applicant to explain both the reasons for his opposition to her application under s 106 Tribunal Act as well as his reasons for making the dismissal application before making a decision on either application.[6] I adjourned the dismissal application for 2 weeks to afford the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to consider the Respondent's reasons for the application and to obtain legal advice.
3. On each of the 3 occasions where the Applicant has failed to appear, the Tribunal has attempted to contact her by telephone to remind her of the scheduled hearing.
4. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the Applicant has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to understand what is happening in her case, to obtain legal advice, to address her prior lack of attendance and finally, to oppose the dismissal application.
5. Second, I have considered the Applicant's conduct since late October 2025 from which I infer she is no longer interested in progressing her application. Relevantly:

(a) on 23 October 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the parties, notifying them of the relisting of the proceeding and requesting that they advise who would be appearing for them (if anyone) at the directions hearing listed for 27 October 2025 but the Applicant did not respond; and > > (b) on 12 November 2025, the Tribunal issued written reasons for refusing the s 106 application to each party and invited them to advise whether they had any concerns about publication of those reasons. Once again, the Applicant did not respond.

6. Further, the Respondent has tendered an email to the Tribunal where the Applicant informed his solicitors on 22 October 2025:

I don't intend to appear further before a Tribunal that has demonstrated time after time that it has already formed a view about my case.

1. He has also tendered an email dated 5 November 2025 where the Applicant informed his solicitors:

I don't intend to waste any more time in pursuing it....there will only be one outcome unless the tribunal is properly assisted by the Commissioner. There can be no prejudice to the commissioner in the matter being dealt with as I have suggested - or the matter being adjourned until after the determination of the substantive proceedings in the Federal Court.

1. Third, I have confirmed from the Tribunal's records that listing notices which issued to the Applicant for each of the 3 the case events stated that if the Applicant failed to attend, the Tribunal may dismiss her application for review without any further consideration of the application or the information before it.
2. In all these circumstances, I am satisfied the Applicant has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to proceed with her application and to respond to the dismissal application, is well informed about the consequences of her non-attendance today, but has made a deliberate decision to effectively abandon her application.
3. On this basis, I have decided the appropriate course is to dismiss the application without further consideration of that application or the information before the Tribunal.
4. I note that the Applicant may apply for reinstatement of her application under s 102 of the Tribunal Act.

Email correspondence from the Applicant to McInnes Wilson Lawyers

Correspondence from the Respondent to the Applicant and email response from the Applicant

Correspondence from the Respondent to the Applicant

23 October 2025, 28 October 2025 and 12 November 2025

[1] [2025] ARTA 1871.

[4] [2025] FCA 1258.

[5] On 23 October 2025, 28 October and 12 November 2025 respectively.

[6] Tribunal directions dated 27 October 2025 and 12 November 2025. In compliance with these directions, the Respondent wrote to the Applicant on 3 November 2025 and 17 November 2025 respectively.