Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Grimaldi and Others (No 6)

[2009] FCA 766
76 ATR 543

---

(Decision by: Graham J)

Federal Commissioner of Taxation
vGrimaldi and Others (No 6)

Court:

Judge:
Graham J

Legislative References:
Income Tax Act 1986 - s 5(1); s 7
ITAA 1936 - Section 175
Income Tax Rates Act 1986 - s 12(1)
Taxation Administration Act 1953 - Part IVC
Judiciary Act 1903 - s 39B
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 - s 31A
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 - Section 31A
Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 - s 7; s 10

Case References:
McAndrew v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - [1956] HCA 62
McAndrew v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - (1956) 98 CLR 263; [1956] ALR 1008
FJ Bloemen Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - (1981) 147 CLR 360; 55 ALJR 451; 35 ALR 104; 11 ATR 914; 81 ATC 4280
FJ Bloemen Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - [1981] HCA 27
Webb v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) - (1993) 47 FCR 394; 125 ALR 523; 27 ATR 459; 93 ATC 5123
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Clyne (1982) - 60 FLR 45; 12 ATR 738; 82 ATC 4070
Commonwealth v Opiel - (1986) 18 ATR 374; 86 ATC 5013
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Richard Walter Pty Ltd - [1995] HCA 23
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Richard Walter Pty Ltd - (1995) 183 CLR 168; 69 ALJR 223; 127 ALR 21; 29 ATR 644; 95 ATC 4067
Syngenta Crop Protection Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - [2005] FCA 1646
Syngenta Crop Protection Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - [2008] ALMD 422
Syngenta Crop Protection Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - (2005) 61 ATR 186
Richardson v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - [1932] HCA 67
Richardson v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - (1932) 48 CLR 192
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Moorebank Pty Ltd - (1988) 165 CLR 55; 62 ALJR 372; 78 ALR 641; 19 ATR 1156; 88 ATC 4443
Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster - [1972] HCA 41
Theseus Exploration NL v Foyster - (1972) 126 CLR 507; 46 ALJR 448; [1972-73] ALR 839
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways - [1964] HCA 69
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) - (1964) 112 CLR 125; 38 ALJR 253; [1965] ALR 636
Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd - [2006] FCA 1352
Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd - [2007] ALMD 1936
Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance A/asia Pty Ltd - (2006) 70 IPR 146; 236 ALR 720
Hocking v Bell - (1945) 71 CLR 430
Paramasivam v University of New South Wales - [2007] FCA 875
White Industries Aust Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - [2007] FCA 511
White Industries Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2007) - 2007 ATC 4441; 240 ALR 792
White Industries Aust Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - 160 FCR 298
White Industries Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation - 66 ATR 306

Hearing date:
Judgment date: 13 July 2009

Sydney

---

Decision by:
Graham J

Ex tempore

1 Applications for stays of execution have been made by each of the first and second respondents in respect of the judgments given earlier today for monetary amounts to be paid by the first and second respondents to the applicant. Before I deal with those applications, I have been reminded that prayer for relief 7 of the applicant's notice of motion filed 24 June 2009 also seeks an extension of the freezing order which was made by consent against the second respondent on 19 May 2009. Senior Counsel for the second respondent indicates that he does not want to be heard in opposition to an order extending the freezing order made on 19 May. Since the order was made, the relevant amount has become the judgment amount, namely $3,552,577.81.

2 It would seem to me appropriate that if there is to be an extension of the freezing order, that amount should be substituted in para 5(a) and also para 9(a)(i) of "Annexure X" to the orders of 19 May 2009. It seems to me that this is an appropriate case for the freezing order to be extended. Senior counsel for the second respondent has indicated that if such an order is made, he would not oppose it being made until further order, provided that liberty to apply is granted in respect of the order as made, and I would agree to that course.