Tax Practitioners Board v Hinckfuss (No 2)

The Court held that where a respondent is ordered to file a concise statement in response and fails to do so, the allegations in the applicant's concise statement are taken to be admitted for the purposes of a default judgment application, operating analogously to r 16.07(2) of the Federal Court Rules — distinguishing the position where a respondent merely fails to file a notice of address for service or appear, which alone would not give rise to deemed admissions of concise statement allegations (following Perram J in APRA v Telstra). However, the Court must still be satisfied on the face of the concise statement that the applicant is entitled to the relief claimed, recognising that a concise statement may not comprehensively plead all necessary elements. On the substantive claims, the Court found 11 contraventions of s 50-5(1), one contravention of s 50-5(2), and one contravention of s 50-10(1) of the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 established, and granted permanent injunctions given the respondent's history of repeat offending including prior 2013 proceedings.