Caratti v Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 199

Caratti v Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 199

French J's dismissal of the application was an interlocutory judgment, so leave to appeal was required. Leave was refused because the first instance reasons were persuasive, there was not sufficient doubt to warrant Full Court reconsideration, and no substantial injustice would result because any future complaint about audits or use of audit material depended on uncertain events and specific material not yet identified. The appeal was therefore dismissed as incompetent.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Failure to Disclose a Reasonable Cause of Action / Full Court Determination of Leave to Appeal and Competency of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed as incompetent; applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'incompetent Appeal' 'taxation Audits' 'improper Purpose' 'use of Audit Material in Criminal Proceedings']
['administrative Law' 'taxation' 'civil Procedure' 'criminal Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment' 'incompetent Appeal' 'taxation Audits' 'improper Purpose' 'use of Audit Material in Criminal Proceedings']

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 and Appeal From Dismissal of Application for Failure to Disclose a Reasonable Cause of Action / Full Court Determination of Leave to Appeal and Competency of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether French J's judgment dismissing the application was an interlocutory judgment requiring leave to appeal under s24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976." 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted, including whether the first instance judgment was attended with sufficient doubt and whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused.' 'Whether alleged improper purpose in taxation audits or proposed use of audit material in a possible criminal retrial justified allowing the proceeding to continue.']

Ratio Decidendi

French J's dismissal of the application was an interlocutory judgment, so leave to appeal was required. Leave was refused because the first instance reasons were persuasive, there was not sufficient doubt to warrant Full Court reconsideration, and no substantial injustice would result because any future complaint about audits or use of audit material depended on uncertain events and specific material not yet identified. The appeal was therefore dismissed as incompetent.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed as incompetent; applicants ordered to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal be refused.' 'The appeal be dismissed as incompetent.' 'The applicants pay the costs of the respondents.']