Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Austin, Leslie Raymond [1998] FCA 1034

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Austin, Leslie Raymond [1998] FCA 1034

Mr Austin was found to have acted as a de facto director of Talljade Pty Ltd because he exercised the company's top-level management functions, was perceived by outsiders as a director, and controlled the company's affairs during the relevant period, thus making him liable to indemnify the Deputy Commissioner under s 588FGA.

Parties
Cross Claimant: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation; Cross Respondent: Leslie Raymond Austin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 August 1998
Procedural Posture
Cross Claim for Indemnity Under Corporations Law / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation; Mr Austin found liable to indemnify.
Legal Topics
De Facto Director, Director Indemnity, Preferential Payments, Winding Up, Statutory Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation

Cross Claimant

Leslie Raymond Austin

Cross Respondent

Procedural Posture

Cross Claim for Indemnity Under Corporations Law / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether Mr Austin acted as a de facto director within the meaning of s 60 of the Corporations Law
  2. 2 Whether Mr Austin is liable to indemnify the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation under s 588FGA

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Austin was found to have acted as a de facto director of Talljade Pty Ltd because he exercised the company's top-level management functions, was perceived by outsiders as a director, and controlled the company's affairs during the relevant period, thus making him liable to indemnify the Deputy Commissioner under s 588FGA.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation; Mr Austin found liable to indemnify.

Orders

  • The cross-respondent pay to the cross-claimant $52,463.35.
  • The cross-respondent is to pay the cross-claimant's costs.