The Commonwealth's motion to set aside Kupang's notice to produce was dismissed with costs. Ball J held that a notice to produce served under r 21.10 UCPR requires disclosure to the other party, not to the court, and therefore s 355-75 TAA (which limits compelled disclosure to courts) does not apply. Further, even if s 355-75 were engaged, where the Commonwealth has chosen to defend proceedings concerned with the administration of taxation law, s 355-75 should not be read as conferring a discretion on taxation officers to withhold relevant documents, given that voluntary disclosure is permitted under s 355-50 in the performance of duties. The decision departs from White J's reasoning in Javorsky on the characterisation of discovery/production obligations as disclosure to the court.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.