The Federal Court has held that the AAT erred in dismissing a self-represented taxpayer’s application before it under s 42A(5) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (which allows the AAT to dismiss a matter before it if the taxpayer fails to proceed with their application). In this case the taxpayer refused to proceed with the application regarding a GST dispute after unsuccessfully applying for the presiding AAT member to excuse himself from the matter on the basis of “apprehended bias”. He was also unable to proceed with the application after falling ill and being briefly hospitalised during the proceedings.
In allowing the taxpayer’s appeal, the Court found that the AAT had misconstrued and misapplied s 42A(5) of the Act for a range of reasons, including that it did not turn its mind to whether a “reasonable time” had elapsed since the taxpayer’s failure to comply with the direction to return to the witness box and it did not approach its discretion under s 45(5) on the basis that it should only be exercised sparingly. Moreover, it found that the decsion denied the taxpayer procedural fairness as he was denied the opportunity to make submissions about the matter (especially as he was initially told that it would not dismiss his application). In short, the Court found that the AAT’s decision was “unreasonable” in the circumstances.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the AAT had misapplied s 42A(5) of the Act and thereby had denied the taxpayer procedural fairness. As a result, the Court ordered that the taxpayer’s application should be remitted to be heard and decided again by a differently constituted AAT. However, the Court nevertheless found that the taxpayer’s claim of “apprehended bias” had not been made out.
(Charara v FCT [2016] FCA 451, Federal Court, Wigney J, 29 April 2016.)
[LTN 82, 3/5/16]
Catchwords [2016] FCA 451
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal against dismissal of application by Administrative Appeals Tribunal under
s 42A(5) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – self-represented litigant – where applicant made recusal application against Tribunal member on grounds of apprehended bias – where recusal application was rejected – where the Administrative Appeals Tribunal assured the applicant that they would not dismiss the matter – where the applicant was conveyed to hospital – where Administrative Appeals Tribunal dismissed the matter in the applicant’s absence – whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made an error of law by misapplying
s 42A(5) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and denied the applicant procedural fairness – whether the Tribunal member’s reasons demonstrate apprehended bias on the basis of predisposition or prejudgment