Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Solway (No 2) [2010] QDC 345
1-1
[2010] QDC 345
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 1117 of 2010
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Plaintiff
and
BRIAN JOHN SOLWAY Defendant
No 1118 of 2010
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION Plaintiff
and
JOY SOLWAY Defendant
BRISBANE
..DATE 03/09/2010
ORDER
CATCHWORDS
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 292, r 990
Summary judgment granted on adjourned hearing of plaintiff's
application - adjournment granted at behest of solicitor for
each defendant so that instructions could be obtained -
nothing forthcoming - solicitor now told his instructions were
"withdrawn" - solicitor not granted leave to withdraw -
release of orders deferred until filing of original of
affidavit of debt establishing the correctness of the judgment
amount
-- 1 of 4 --
1-2 ORDER
HIS HONOUR: The court is prepared to make orders in terms of
the draft judgments provided by Ms Scott in each of these
matters.
They were before the court on 20 August 2010 when the only
order made was to adjourn until today. That occurred at the
request of Mr Chand and on the flimsy basis, although accepted
by the court for the purpose, that he had instructions to seek
an adjournment and expected in the future to meet with his
clients and obtain instructions from them for a better defence
than had to that point been forthcoming. The reasons for the
court proceeding as it did can be found at [2010] QDC 336.
As matters have turned out, there was no progress. Mr Chand
is still to meet with the clients. He tells the court today
the mode of contact is through a broker known as 180
Corporate.
The instructions that entity gives on behalf of Mr and Mrs
Solway have been communicated orally and in the first
instance, it seems, to the Sydney office of Mr Chand's firm.
He has attended today seeking leave to withdraw as solicitor
on the record for the defendants in each proceeding. I have
taken the cautious approach of declining to accede to his
request.
The steps that are set out in rule 990 and following of the
UCPR for a solicitor to obtain leave to withdraw have not been
pursued and understandably so. It is only this morning that
-- 2 of 4 --
1-3 ORDER
Mr Chand has received further instructions from 180 Corporate
by telephone to the effect that his instructions are
withdrawn. Nothing further is provided.
The court accepts Mr Chand's assurances that the clients,
through 180 Corporate, have been informed of today's hearing
which carries the meaning that they ought to attend if they
hope to escape being at risk of a judgment against them.
Neither has appeared when called today at 12:25 p.m., the
matter having been listed for noon.
The court had reached a point on the last occasion of being
willing to enter judgment. The plaintiff has the advantage of
the familiar statutory provisions which make certificates and
the like specifying amounts due to the plaintiff, evidence
difficult to contest; nothing is forthcoming at all to cast
doubt on the correctness of the assertions which are to the
effect that the Solways' company failed to remit to the
plaintiff withholdings to meet tax obligations of employees.
I will defer the signing of the orders which are for judgment
under rule 292 in the appropriate amounts against the
respective defendants until confirmation reaches me that the
original of the relevant affidavit of debt of Virginia
Kevorkian in the relevant proceeding has been filed.
Ms Scott resists the qualification of the orders by
endorsement of a condition that they are subject to the filing
of the original of the affidavit of debt, apprehensive that
that is going to involve unwelcome complications of proof of
-- 3 of 4 --
1-4 ORDER
the filing of the affidavit having to be provided whenever in
the future reliance might be placed on the judgment.
The affidavits of debt the court has relied on today were
sworn in Sydney this morning, which accounts for originals not
being available in Brisbane. Affidavits of the same deponent
deposing to the same amounts being due on the last day were
read in the court. Ms Scott does not have the originals of
those which have been in Brisbane for some time available in
court.
It is anticipated that within the next hour or so those will
be forthcoming and filed; when satisfied of that, I will make
an order in terms of the initialled draft in each matter or,
perhaps more correctly, I will release the initialled draft so
that the plaintiff can use it.
...
-----
-- 4 of 4 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QDC/2010/345