FCA ACD xxx 2024 - COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN v ROBYN ORR & ANOR

 Documents filed in FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 

COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN v ROBYN ORR & ANOR 

File Number ACD xxx/2023 - REJECTED 

At the first case management hearing for ACD73/2023 - about an application for leave to appeal - Justice Horan said that concerns that false evidence was used to obtain the decision were separate from the matter before him which was ONLY an application for leave to appeal from a decision published on 7 December 2023.

Transcript of first Case Management Hearing, ACD73/2023, on 05/06/2024

Following the view expressed by Justice Horan, a new proceeding was filed on 16 June 2024 to address the use of false evidence and deceptive submissions in the decision:

Form 15 — Originating Application - lodged 16/06/2024

FormNCF1 —Concise Statement - lodged 16/06/2024

Form 16 —Genuine Steps Statement - lodged 16/06/2024

Judicial Registrar M Buckingham rejected the above application on 19 June 2024 writing:

    "The Application as a matter of form and substance seeks to appeal the decision of Justice Wigney in Dunstan v Orr (No 2) [2023] FCA 1536, in circumstances where the only avenue of appeal is an application for leave to appeal in accordance with section 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976."

This is contrary to:

    The statement by Justice Horan on 5 June 2024 that the ONLY matter before him was an application for leave to appeal. He was NOT addressing the Tax Commissioner's use of false evidence to obtain the decision that was the subject of that application, and
    What the Federal Court of Australia did when the Tax Commissioner lost a case heard before the Full Court. On that occasion the Federal Court accepted a fresh application from the Tax Office (which was NOT an application for leave to appeal in accordance with section 24(1A) to have that decision set aside on the ground that it was obtained by fraud on the court. The Tax Commissioner's application was not rejected by Judicial Registrar Buckingham as he did the application lodged on 16 June 2024 against the Tax Commissioner. The Federal Court of Australia published the decision Commissioner of Taxation v Rawson Finances Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 617 in January 2024, finding:
      the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court should be set aside on the ground that it was procured by fraud.
    In Australia, like in other common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales, courts have the power to overturn a judgment if the judgment was obtained by fraud. This power was best explained in the High Court case of Clone Pty Ltd v Players Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] HCA 12:
      A claimant seeking to overturn a judgment on the grounds of fraud must pursue their cause in a new proceeding, separate from the original claim - NOT in an application for leave to appeal.

Emails from FCA, 19/06/2024

Letter from Federal Court of Australia, 19/06/2024 - rejecting application lodged 16/06/2024

Further Reading

"150 ATO officials investigated in GST fraud scheme", 13 February 2024

Respondents in the application rejected by Judicial Registrar Buckingham were responsible for the design, security and operation of the GST system.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Applicant's Affidavit of 14 May 2025 - Dunstan v Orr and Others - ACD57 of 2024

Form 59 Rule 29.02(1)                                                                                                                     Affidavit No.       ACD 57 of 2024 Federal Court of Australia District Registry: Australian Capital Territory Division : General COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN Applicant ROBYN ORR and others Respondents   Affidavit of:...
Read more

Does the Tax Commissioner know how his legal representatives conduct litigation?

Image
Tax Commissioner defends outrageous conduct of legal representatives The legal profession has high standards for how litigation is to be conducted.  The Commissioner of Taxation's website says: "As a government agency, we apply the highest standards of ethical behaviour when we are involved in litigation. ...[We] need to do the right thing, be fair and have the highest professional standards ..." A statement of claim lodged in the Federal Court of Australia recently details unprofessional and unethical conduct by the Tax Commissioner's legal representatives in defending an action alleging serious fraud by senior Tax Office delegates of the Tax Commissioner.  The Tax Commissioner may have acknowledged that his legal representatives had behaved inappropriately - if he was aware of the issue. Instead, a team of legal representatives was sent to the Federal Court of Australia with the unenviable task of devising a way to obstruct, and presumably to defeat the litigation. ...
Read more