Sibir v Glanville & Ors S297/2000 [2001] HCATrans 662 (14 December 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S297 of 2000

B e t w e e n -

ALEX SIBIR

Applicant

and

DAREN GLANVILLE

First Respondent

RICHARD CHAN

Second Respondent

OHNMAR KHIN

Third Respondent

RON THOMPSON

Fourth Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

HAYNE J

CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 14 DECEMBER 2001, AT 2.00 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

_____________

MR A. SIBIR appeared in person.

MR N.J. WILLIAMS, SC: I appear for the respondents, your Honour. (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

HAYNE J: Yes, Mr Sibir.

MR SIBIR: I would like to put forward my application for special leave on the grounds of the ATO's - that is the Australian Taxation Office's - negligence under a duty of care under statutory law. No 2 is the harassment caused by the officers. I have been trying to resolve this matter for 12 years, now, since 1989, and I have had no success. I have approached the Parramatta Taxation Office many times. The officers treated me with contempt. They say that I was a criminal. It caused a lot of problems in my professional four offices that I had - I had to close them down. I have lost a big opportunity by joining a big overseas corporation that wanted my services. The miscalculations in the tax - over 220 per cent - is an embarrassment to them, and they have admitted their mistakes in the Federal Court, when they took me to the Parramatta District Court by suing me at the time. I have written to them 17 letters, 10 of them which were found. They were not strong enough apparently as an objection to the tax rulings.

HAYNE J: You understand, I hope, Mr Sibir, that your application is an application for leave to appeal against a particular order. The order that you want to have this Court look at and overturn is the order that is at page 24 of the application book. We have to be persuaded at least that it is arguable that that order is wrong. At the moment you have told us about the general position as you see it in your dealings with the Tax Office, but what we have to look at is why you say this order is wrong. Is there something you want to tell us about that?

MR SIBIR: I just think that if this order the way it stands is put in place, it is not fair to the general public such as myself or people in the business and apparently there is no argument that you can put forward against the Tax Office because they have every situation covered by their Acts and laws and a person like myself representing myself without any barrister involved - which I was hoping to obtain in the next few months and they would not allow me the time to obtain a barrister's services because I am not in a position at the moment to obtain representation.

I think that the whole matter has been unfair to me, the way that the Supreme Court judges, the Federal Court judges, the Full Bench court and the District Court acted against me for something that I have overpaid the Tax Office in tax, is verified by my accountants that I have overpaid them, and they apparently will not review the case because they have no records. They have none of my tax records, none of my letters that I have sent them, and therefore they cannot review my case on that basis. So I feel they have been negligent in taking me to court without any evidence on their behalf. They have relied on everything on my copies of the letters and the taxation papers that I have sent to them and they have admitted to the mistakes in the District Court in Parramatta. The fact is that they have reduced the amount from 45,000 to 25,000 approximately because of the mistakes they have made.

Even the recent tax assessment that I have, the court said that 25,000 - they have sent to me a bill for 37,000, so it just goes on and on with miscalculations on their behalf. I feel that I have done nothing wrong. All my taxes are up to date, including GST just recently that I paid, and the fact is that I could have earned a lot of money if this matter was resolved 12 years ago, a matter of over $5 million that I have lost in that time. I have been sick due to this matter, I am stressed - an emotional strain imposed and I am getting nowhere even just now. The continuous harassment that they have given me over the 12 years has been something I just hope nobody else would have to undergo. This is why I am here.

I have got a big opportunity here to bring vast amounts of money to Australia to help this country through the corporations that I am involved with and under the due diligence guidelines and national security and the second.....confidential contracts that I have had to comply with, even though I have got the documentation here to prove what I have been doing, I cannot divulge this at this moment in public, only in private. So I just rest my case. I just hope that I just can complete this whole matter amicably possibly with the Tax Office so that I can join the big corporations. They are offering me a job at any time; I can join them. The only thing is that ATO has virtually put me under bankruptcy at this stage, so I might have to wait three years until that is resolved.

It is only over a small amount. I have had to sell just about everything, all my assets, to sustain myself up to date. That is the position I am in at the moment. I am being helped by friends and I just hope that the High Court may consider the matter. I have got videotapes of the harassments, not only to myself but others, that the officers have caused. I had hoped that the High Court may review them.

HAYNE J: No, we have to focus on what it is that you say is wrong in Justice Tamberlin's conclusion that you had no reasonable prospects for succeeding in an appeal from Justice Sackville. That is the issue we have to grapple with. We have of course read very carefully what you have written, but is there anything more you want to say to us about why Justice Tamberlin was wrong to conclude your case had no chance of success?

MR SIBIR: I feel that the action that he has taken in putting the order in, it is just that it is unfair and it is unfair to the public and the business people of Australia. If this matter is somehow not resolved by putting possibly some sort of - ensuring actually the ATO having some sort of rules to comply with so that the officers do not do what they did to me to the general public. That is what I am really concerned with, because they are sending a lot of people bankrupt unfairly and a lot of the people, even myself, are not guilty of what they are saying. The stress that they are put under is just incredible, emotional health and long periods of depression, and it is evident in the videos too, not only myself. I just hope this sort of thing may not happen over a trivial amount of money. The fact is that I am not guilty. It has been proven by my accountants. I have got all my records and bank statements to prove the fact that I have overpaid them in tax and they are still sending me bankrupt. I mean, it just does not seem fair. I cannot say any more than that. Thank you very much.

HAYNE J: Thank you, Mr Sibir. We need not trouble you, Mr Williams.

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from an order refusing him leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia against an order summarily terminating a proceeding that he had instituted in the Federal Court against persons said to be past or present officers of the Australian Taxation Office. He was refused leave to appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court on the basis that, among other things, an appeal would have no reasonable prospect of success. That decision was clearly right. It follows that special leave to appeal is refused and is refused with costs.

AT 2.12 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED