Legal Research
Cases
Hepples v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia

Hepples v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia

Case [1992] HCATrans 43

Appeal

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S114 of 1990
B e t w e e n -
PETER WILLIAM HEPPLES

Appellant

and
THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION OF
THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent

Judgment

MASON CJ

BRENNAN J
DEANE J

DAWSON J

TOOHEY J

Hepples(3)

12/2/92

GAUDRON J

McHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 1992, AT 10.21 AM

(Continued from 12/12/91)

MASON CJ: At the time of delivery of judgment in this

matter, the Court indicated that it would hear
argument on the proposed forms of order. Having
heard argument on the proposed form of orders, the
Court has come to the conclusion that the orders
proposed at the time of delivery of judgment should
be made and I publish the joint reasons of the
Court for that conclusion.

(Reasons for judgment were delivered)

AT 10.22 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Hepples

12/2/92

Details

AGLC: Hepples v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia [1992] HCATrans 43
Case: [1992] HCATrans 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Hepples v The Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia*, the High Court of Australia was required to determine the form of orders to be made following its earlier judgment in the matter. The case concerned a dispute between Peter William Hepples and the Commissioner of Taxation.

The central legal issue before the Court was the precise wording and effect of the orders to be entered, following the Court's determination of the substantive appeal. The Court had previously delivered judgment, indicating its conclusion on the appeal, and now needed to finalise the consequential orders.

The Court, having heard further argument on the proposed forms of order, concluded that the orders it had indicated at the time of its judgment should be made. Mason CJ published the joint reasons of the Court for this conclusion, confirming the final disposition of the matter.

Orders