R v Trebilco [1936] HCA 63

R v Trebilco [1936] HCA 63

The board did not improperly exercise its discretion under sec. 66 by considering the financial position of the taxpayer in the years subsequent to those under direct application. The statute permits the board to take into account the general circumstances, including subsequent developments, and no error of law or extraneous consideration sufficient to justify mandamus was shown.

Parties
Applicant: F. S. Falkiner and Sons Ltd.; Respondents: Trebilco and Others (members of the board)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Mandamus / Full Court Hearing of Order Nisi on Application for Writ of Mandamus
Outcome
Order nisi discharged with costs.
Legal Topics
Discretion of Administrative Boards, Land Tax Relief, Mandamus to Administrative Agencies, Scope of Judicial Review
Taxation Law Administrative Law Discretion of Administrative Boards Land Tax Relief Mandamus to Administrative Agencies Scope of Judicial Review

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

F. S. Falkiner and Sons Ltd.

Applicant

Trebilco and Others (members of the board)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application for Mandamus / Full Court Hearing of Order Nisi on Application for Writ of Mandamus

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the board improperly exercised its discretion by considering financial conditions in years subsequent to those for which land tax relief was sought
  2. 2 Whether mandamus should issue to compel the board to rehear the application according to law

Ratio Decidendi

The board did not improperly exercise its discretion under sec. 66 by considering the financial position of the taxpayer in the years subsequent to those under direct application. The statute permits the board to take into account the general circumstances, including subsequent developments, and no error of law or extraneous consideration sufficient to justify mandamus was shown.

Court Disposition

Order nisi discharged with costs.

Orders

  • Order nisi for mandamus is discharged.
  • Applicant to pay respondents' costs.