|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Fiji Tax Tribunal |
IN THE STATUTORY TRIBUNAL, FIJI ISLANDS
SITTING
AS THE TAX TRIBUNAL
Decision
Section 89 Tax Administration Decree 2009
Title of Matter:
THREE RELATED TAXPAYERS
(Applicant)
v
FIJI REVENUE AND CUSTOMS AUTHORITY
(Respondent)
Section: Section 82 Tax Administration Decree
2009
Subject: Application for Review of Reviewable Decision
Matter Number(s): Matter No 02 of 2006, 3A of 2006 and 3B of 2006
Appearances: Mr. A. Naco, Naco Chambers
Ms. R Malani, FRCA Legal
Unit for the Respondent
Date of Hearing: 19 August 2014
Before: Mr Andrew J See,
Resident Magistrate
Date of Decision: 19 August 2014
FAILURE TO PROSECUTE PROCEEDINGS IN A TIMELY FASHION – ORDER XXX RULE 2, MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 1978
1. The cases before the Tribunal involve 3 taxpayers. For onveninvenience of the taxpayers and the Tribunal, it was agreed to join and prowith the hearing of all matl matters simultaneously. These cases were:
2. On 4 December 2013 a Cost Order was issued by the Tribunal
against the Applicants for their failure to prosecute the matter in
accordance
with the directions of the Tribunal. And ot occt occasion, costs were also
ordered against a firm of lawyers for what
woulm to have been, their
contrcontribution to the frustration of the proper attendances of the matter on
behalf of their clients.
3.
3. On 12 December 2013, a Notice of Change of Solic was lodged in the registry of the High Couh Court of Fiji. Naco Chambers, Barristers & Solicitors thereafter became the solicitors on the record for all 3 matters.
4. Attendant with that change, the Tribunal recognized the need to allow Mr. Naco of that firm some time to acquaint himself with the details in respect of all these 3 matters and for that reason on several occasions a good deal of leeway was given to Mr. Naco in the manner in which he proceeded to advance the case of the taxpayers, in a bid to ensure all parties were given a fair appearance before the Tribunal.
5. On several occasions, on 11 March 2014 for example, it appeared that there was an inadequa the manneranner in which information had been provided to the Tribunal and a lack of clarity as to the arguments and the issues that were in dispute.
7.
7. The Tribunal recollects on the last occasion, given the degree of latitude that had been provided to the Applicants, that the time had come for them to properly present Submissions to the Tribunal so as to complete the longstanding matters first commenced in 2006.
8. The Tribunal is advised that on the 4 August 2014, a Notice of Listing was to both parties. On ; On 6 August 2014 and for reasons not particularly relevant to these matters, it was anticipated that theunal may neay need to vacate the hearing date of 19 August 2014. It was for that reason that a Notice of Cancellation of the matter listed for 19 August 2014 at 12 pm was emailed to both parties, that being the Applicant's solicitors and the Respondent.
9. Arising out of a change of administrative arrangements, on 7 August 2014 an email was sent to both parties that the matter will proceed as per the original Notice of Listing. Onugust 20st 2014, Direction Orders for the parties to file and sehe Final Submissions by no later than 14 Au14 August 2014 were also issued.
10. On 12 August 2014, the Tribunal is advised by registry staff that a phone call was made to both parties notifying of the confirmation of the return date of 19 August 2014 at 12 pm for Final Submissions and reinforcing that any Submission were to be filed by 14 August 2014.
11. On 12 August 2014, a Notice of Amended Hearing was served to both parties notifying of the call on date of 19 August 2014 at 12 pm.
12. I am advised today by the court clerk in attendance, that shortly before this matter was called on for hearing, he was advised by a person purportedly representing Naco Chambers that another solicitor instead of Mr. Naco, was due to attend proceedings. Despite the fact that 55 minutes have now passed, no such appearance has been made.
13. The nal is mind mindful of the obligation set out with section 84 (2) of ax Administration Decree 20ee 2009:
"That in all proceedings, the Tribunal must act fairly."
14. The Tribunal believes that having regard to these 3 applications, that it has gone to great lengths to ensure it has been fair at all times to the taxpayers. For whatever reasons the taxpayers have failed to comply now with directions required of them to complete the case.
15
15. In cases of this type, the onus is on the Applicants to discharge the
burden of proofo whether oher or not their Applications
for Review have been
made out (see section 21(1) of the Tax Administration Decree 2009).
16
16. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the taxpayers have discharged their obligation to prosecute this matter in a genuine instance here. The taxpayers have not complied with the essential direction of the Tribunal to provide Finbmissions in order that thit this matter should be determined. should hald have been no misunderstanding whatsoever as to the tance of those last directions that were isre issued to the parties on 21 July 2014. That is approximately some 4 weeks ago.
17. For the above reaand in accordance with the Order XXX Rule 2ule 2 of the Magistrates Court Rules 1978, the Tribunal has determined that it will now dismiss all 3 applications for the failure of the Applicants to properly prosecute their applications before the Tribunal.
Costs
18. The Respondent seeks reimbursement of costs in the
amount of $1000.00. Tcosts shas shall be apportioned against all 3
taxpayers
and ordered to be paid w 14 days.
DeDecision
This Tribunal Orders that:
(i) The Application is dismissed.
(ii) The Respondent seeks reimbursement of costs in the amount of $1000.00. Thosts shas shall be apportioned against all 3 taxpayers and ordered to be paid wit4 days.
Mr Andrew J See
Resident
Magistrate
PacLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.paclii.org/fj/cases/FJTT/2014/4.html
