Healy v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation

[2015] WASCA 44

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Service
2. › Service of notice
3. › Postal service
4. › When notice given
5. › Ordinary course of post
6. › Statistical evidence of postal delivery times
7. › Whether Australia Post annual report statistics sufficient to establish ordinary course of post
8. › Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 29(1)
1. Evidence
2. › Presumptions
3. › Postal articles
4. › Presumption of receipt on fourth working day
5. › Whether evidence sufficient to raise doubt about presumption
6. › Interaction with deemed service provisions
7. › Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s 160
1. Taxation
2. › Income tax
3. › Director penalty notices
4. › Service requirements
5. › When notice 'given' for purposes of remission period
6. › Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth), ss 222AOE, 222AOF
1. Service
2. › Service of notice
3. › Postal service
4. › Distinction between non-delivery to address and non-receipt by addressee
5. › Evidence of non-receipt insufficient to prove non-delivery
6. › Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 29(1)

Quick Take

Where evidence establishes the time of delivery in the ordinary course of post (such as Australia Post annual report statistics showing 99% delivery within three business days), the deeming provision in s 29(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act is fully engaged and the s 160 Evidence Act presumption of receipt on the fourth working day does not apply. Statistical evidence at the level of capital city metropolitan areas is sufficient; suburb-to-suburb specificity is not required. Evidence of non-receipt by the addressee is not evidence of non-delivery to the address and does not displace the s 29(1) deeming provision.