5 May 2023
Because both parties abandoned claims for costs in respect of the substantive hearing, and having regard to the history and circumstances of the interlocutory application, the appropriate exercise of the court's discretion is to make no order for costs for either the substantive proceeding or the interlocutory application; costs in respect of the interlocutory application lie where they fall.
6 Apr 2016
The Court allowed joinder of Mr Hines and Ms Jacob and the Human Rights Commission as interested non-parties but exercised its discretion to limit participation: Hines and Jacob may only rely on the affidavit of Professor Morris and may not file further evidence or cross-examine; they must file joint written submissions (max 6,000 words) by 3pm 21 April 2016 and may attend the hearing; the Commission may file written submissions (max 6,000 words) by the same date and may not produce evidence or cross-examine. The restrictions were imposed because the applicants lacked a direct legal interest,…
19 Mar 2010
Default income tax and GST assessments were valid and enforceable because the appellant failed to file required returns and did not follow statutory procedures to challenge assessments; the appellant's Treaty-based exemption and BORA arguments failed as a matter of law; secrecy and fresh evidence applications were refused; appeal dismissed except for a PAYE concession of $6,250 reducing the judgment to $10,335,160.32.