Commissioner of Taxation v Grimaldi (No. 7) [2009] FCA 768

Commissioner of Taxation v Grimaldi (No. 7) [2009] FCA 768

The applications for stays were dismissed because, having regard to the principles in Warrick (No 2) and ss 14ZZM and 14ZZR of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), neither respondent established a sufficient basis to delay recovery. There was no evidence of abuse of office, impecuniosity or extreme personal hardship. The first respondent's contention that a possible liability of the fourth respondent might cause his liability to abate did not necessarily follow. The second respondent's recent objections and asserted reliance on advice did not satisfy the test for a stay, particularly where there was no evidence that the advice was sought by and given to him or that he acted...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Tax Recovery Proceeding / Applications by the First and Second Respondents for a Stay of Proceedings for Recovery of Monies Due Under Judgments Given on 13 July 2009 Under S 31 a of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)
Outcome
Applications for stays dismissed; costs ordered against the first and second respondents; proceedings against the fourth respondent stood over for directions.
Legal Topics
['recovery of Tax Debts' 'stay of Execution' 'summary Judgment' 'objections, Reviews and Appeals' 'extreme Personal Hardship']
['taxation' 'civil Procedure'] ['recovery of Tax Debts' 'stay of Execution' 'summary Judgment' 'objections, Reviews and Appeals' 'extreme Personal Hardship']

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

Tax Recovery Proceeding / Applications by the First and Second Respondents for a Stay of Proceedings for Recovery of Monies Due Under Judgments Given on 13 July 2009 Under S 31 a of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (cth)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proceedings for recovery of the judgment sum against the first respondent should be stayed pending resolution of other issues in relation to tax liability.' 'Whether proceedings for recovery of the judgment sum against the second respondent should be stayed pending objection decisions and any review or appeal.' 'Whether the evidence established circumstances such as abuse of office or extreme personal hardship sufficient to justify a stay.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applications for stays were dismissed because, having regard to the principles in Warrick (No 2) and ss 14ZZM and 14ZZR of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth), neither respondent established a sufficient basis to delay recovery. There was no evidence of abuse of office, impecuniosity or extreme personal hardship. The first respondent's contention that a possible liability of the fourth respondent might cause his liability to abate did not necessarily follow. The second respondent's recent objections and asserted reliance on advice did not satisfy the test for a stay, particularly where there was no evidence that the advice was sought by and given to him or that he acted...

Court Disposition

Applications for stays dismissed; costs ordered against the first and second respondents; proceedings against the fourth respondent stood over for directions.

Orders

  • ['The application for a stay of proceedings for recovery of monies due under the judgment given on 13 July 2009 against the first respondent be dismissed.' 'The application for a stay of proceedings for recovery of monies due under the judgment given on 13 July 2009 against the second respondent be dismissed.' 'The...