Widdup v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2023] FCAFC 145

Widdup v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2023] FCAFC 145

Leave to appeal refused because applicants failed to demonstrate substantial injustice or sufficient doubt attending primary judge’s decision; Deputy Commissioner had a good arguable case for freezing orders, relied properly on conclusive evidence provisions, and allegations of material non-disclosure and maladministration were not sufficiently established in interlocutory proceedings; evidence supported risk of dissipation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['freezing Orders' 'family Trust Distribution Tax' 'income Tax Assessment' 'conclusive Evidence Provisions' 'maladministration' 'material Non Disclosure' 'application for Payment Out of Moneys Paid Into Court']
['taxation' 'practice and Procedure'] ['freezing Orders' 'family Trust Distribution Tax' 'income Tax Assessment' 'conclusive Evidence Provisions' 'maladministration' 'material Non Disclosure' 'application for Payment Out of Moneys Paid Into Court']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal interlocutory order should be granted' 'Whether moneys paid into court to discharge freezing orders should be paid out' 'Whether Deputy Commissioner failed to disclose material facts on ex parte application for freezing order' 'Whether maladministration by Deputy Commissioner affected validity of tax liability notices' 'Scope and application of conclusive evidence provisions in Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth)' 'Existence and risk of dissipation of assets']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal refused because applicants failed to demonstrate substantial injustice or sufficient doubt attending primary judge’s decision; Deputy Commissioner had a good arguable case for freezing orders, relied properly on conclusive evidence provisions, and allegations of material non-disclosure and maladministration were not sufficiently established in interlocutory proceedings; evidence supported risk of dissipation.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' "Applicants pay respondents' costs, of and incidental to the application, to be fixed in a lump sum by a Registrar if not agreed."]