The judgments of some judges are worthwhile reading for reasons apart from their legal content. Justice John Logan of the Federal Court is one.[1]
Family lawyers and its judges too specialised?
The evidence in this case in relation to the application by Ms Ellison for the making and amendment of an order under s 79 of the Family Law Act, the subsequent lodgement of a consent by her and Mr Ellison and supporting materials and their approval by the Family Court, all, seemingly, without any attention to the possible federal revenue law consequences of the order proposed, made and later amended, gives pause for thought about the risks of over-specialisation in both the practising profession and the judiciary.[2]
The Commissioner’s meritless Dickensian submission
The Commissioner contended that there was insufficiency of identity in the shares referred to in the order for there to be a change in beneficial ownership. There was, with respect, a Dickensian quality to this submission, perhaps grounded in the nostalgic recollection of individually numbered, paper share certificates, physical scrip, duly produced at a company’s share registry for cancellation and issuing of a fresh certificate or indorsement following a share transfer transaction. One might, with respect, have thought that ordinary experience of share transfer transactions in the digital age would have given pause for thought about the advancing of this submission. As it happens, it is without merit.[3]
[1] Ellison v Sandini Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 44
[2] At [5], minor paraphrasing
[3] At [21].
