Commissioner of State Revenue v The Muir Elecctrical Co Pty Ltd & Ors

(2003) 8 VR 200; [2003] VSCA 112

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Revenue Law
2. › Payroll tax
3. › Grouping provisions
4. › Whether employer and retailers constituted a 'group'
5. › Whether 'a business' in grouping provision includes plural 'businesses'
6. › Contrary intention to singular-includes-plural presumption
7. › Pay-roll Tax Act 1971 (Vic), s 9A(1A)(c)
8. › Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), s 37(c)
1. Statutory Interpretation
2. › Singular includes plural
3. › Contrary intention
4. › Whether context of legislation evinces contrary intention to presumption that singular includes plural
5. › Use of both singular and plural forms elsewhere in same provision
6. › Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic), s 37(c)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeal
3. › Leave to cross-appeal
4. › Whether leave to cross-appeal necessary when leave to appeal has been granted
5. › Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic), s 17A(3A)(a), s 17A(4)(b)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeal
3. › Interlocutory orders
4. › Whether implied refusal of leave to appeal under s 148(1)(b) of Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act is interlocutory

Quick Take

The word 'business' in s.9A(1A)(c) of the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971 (Vic) does not include the plural 'businesses', so the grouping provision applies only where an employee is employed solely or mainly to perform duties for a single business carried on by another person. A respondent requires leave to cross-appeal under s.17A(3A)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) even where leave to appeal has been granted to the appellant. The question whether the characterisation distinction drawn in the earlier Court of Appeal decision regarding paragraph (d) applies to paragraph (c) was left open.