UNSW Global v CCSR [2016] NSWSC 1852
Sometimes the ordinary, literal meaning of a provision will not remedy the mischief it was meant to address, and you’ll need to look for an alternative reading of the text3. However, White J (at [47-50]) reminds us to be careful not to adopt a position that addresses the mischief parliament had …
Narrier v WA [2016] FCA 1519
Episode 6 warns us against simplistic generalisations about statutory policy. This case (at [1092-1095]) repeats what the High Court said in Alcan6 about the dangers of fixing on the general revenue-raising purpose of tax laws as a basis for interpretation.
The question is how far legislation goes in pursuit of revenue raising, once …
Grain Growers v CCSR [2016] NSWCA 359
Episode 19 makes the point that ‘connection phrases’ take their meaning from their context8. The issue in this case was what ‘in connection with’ means in an exemption requiring wages be paid ‘for work of a kind ordinarily performed in connection with the … charitable … purposes of the institution’9…
CSR v ACN 005 057 349 Pty Ltd [2017] HCA 6
If an official discretion is subject to preconditions, there may be a duty to act once they are satisfied10. That was not what happened in this case, however. An Act said the revenue may amend errors in land tax assessments (such as overpayments). The problem was that …
Many cases touch on statutory interpretation in some way, but few are about almost nothing else. Uber BV is one of them. The GST law defines ‘taxi travel’ to mean ‘travel that involves transporting passengers, by taxi or limousine, for fares’. Griffiths J said that ‘taxi’ takes its ordinary meaning and that …
Resolution of tax disputes depends on applying the law as it is to the facts as found. If the facts are wrong, so usually will be the tax. Findings of fact often depend on contractual interpretation, so it’s important to know the basics here. As the High Court restated recently1, it’s an objective approach according to …
Justice John Logan of the Federal Court makes two points in a recent paper about statutory interpretation1. The first is that a ‘plethora of prescription’ in legislation ‘has, almost exponentially, increased the construction tasks a member of the [AAT] may be called upon to confront’2. The second is that interpretational principles ‘do not differ as between …
Bywater Investments v FCT [2016] HCA 45
Episode 3 dealt with how to approach the interpretation of DTAs. Gordon J in this case (at [145-150]) provides further guidance in the context of a dispute about residency for income tax purposes.
Where a DTA is set out in an Act in the same words, the ‘transposed text should bear the same …
Siddique v Martin [2016] VSCA 274
The word ‘under’ is common in statutes. In this case, the court had power to direct that items seized ‘under a search warrant’ be returned to their owner. A magistrate had held he could not return things seized by police but not listed on the warrant6.
The court (at [19]) quoted a …
Jeremiah v Lawrie [2016] NTCA 6
Plaintiff S99 [2016] FCA 483
Episode 13 dealt with the ‘principle of legality’ that clear words are needed to interfere with important common law rights and doctrines. These two cases show the flexibility with which it may apply in practice. In Jeremiah (at [76-84]), validity of a search warrant was upheld despite interference with …
