#perram

[fuckyeahzevranarainai]

When the sun’s in my eye and it’s hard to drive

There’s mi amore~

@fuwafawn

Thank you!

[shitjudgessay]

Mr Sandbach has failed repeatedly and, if I may say, insouciantly, to comply with the orders made by this Court more or less since he commenced the appeal. The hearing has been vacated once and, if I do not now dismiss his appeal, will certainly be vacated a second time. Even now, in the face of the current circumstances, Mr Sandbach does not offer to put his house in order. There is some ongoing prejudice to the Respondent to the extent that Mr Sandbach’s constant defaults cost money to meet, but beyond that the Commissioner’s position is probably not overly prejudiced beyond the delay itself. On the other hand, Mr Sandbach’s conduct of the proceedings satisfies me that he does not take the orders I make even remotely seriously. There are plenty of other matters awaiting a hearing. In my opinion, Mr Sandbach has had his fair share of this Court’s time ... Here, Mr Sandbach has repeatedly flouted my attempts to manage this case. At some point, there must be a consequence. That point has arrived.

Sandbach v Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 526 (16 May 2017) [12]-[13] (Perram J).

We also enjoyed the introduction to this passage in last Friday’s Australian Financial Review by reporter Katie Walsh:

In the barrister rule book, wedged somewhere between thou shalt treat even thou utmost enemy with civility, and thou really must build a strong bladder for long appearances, is the one about not pushing one's luck with the bench.

Federal Court judge Nye Perram appeared to take some relish in enforcing it this week, in a matter involving those common bedfellows: a barrister and the tax man.

[fuckyeahzevranarainai]

Dragon Age. Or, as I like to call it, A Trilogy of Accidental Romances.

[shitjudgessay]

I find that the fish oil imported from Chile smells unpleasant. I was provided with a sample of this fish oil as Exhibit MX-3 and have smelt it. It smells like a cross between stale fish and vinyl. My associate thinks it smells like semi-fermented grass cuttings revealing his more sophisticated nose. I have not tasted it but I am prepared to infer that it would be very unpleasant to consume even in small doses. I also accept that placing the fish oil in the soft-gel capsules has the effect of making palatable and flavourless a product which is essentially very unpleasant. It has another benefit too. By sealing the fish oil in the capsules the speed of oxidation is reduced and, along with that, the rate of deterioration in the fish oil caused by exposure to light. This is not the case with the liquid fish oil imported from Chile. [...] There is a related issue. Professor Barrow properly drew my attention to the phenomenon of ‘burp-back’. ‘Burp-back’ occurs when a soft-gel capsule containing something malodorous such as fish oil is consumed. Once the capsule descends into the digestive depths of the stomach the soft-gel dissolves releasing its noxious payload the odour of which, thus liberated, rises up the gullet to the mouth where, unsought and unwelcome, it presents itself as a salutary warning against the perils of belching. Professor Barrow succinctly described it as ‘unpleasant fishy burping’. Just because the soft-gel fails in the inhospitable regions of the upper reaches of the alimentary canal does not mean that for many people the capsule is not effective to protect them from the smell of the fish oil. It does mean, however, that it cannot be entirely correct to say that encapsulation has changed the nature of the fish oil so that its odour is no longer present. It can be present when the fish oil is extracted from the capsules and it may emerge if a consumer should burp.

Nature's Care Manufacture Pty Ltd v Australian Made Campaign Limited [2018] FCA 1936 (3 December 2018) [21], [23] (Perram J).

[shitjudgessay]

The promotion of the Premium Speed Pack, concerned as it was with notions of rapidity, proceeded under the banner 'Supersonic Broadband' and was accompanied by a leitmotif of two deer. The first deer symbolically represented the speeds available at ordinary broadband speeds whilst the second deer stood for the speeds available using 'Supersonic Broadband'. The second deer, as might naturally be expected, gradually accelerates during the promotion before eventually taking flight – legs retracted – shortly thereafter reaching the speed of sound, passing thereupon through a shock cone which appears unexpectedly around its snout before finally disappearing out of sight leaving behind it not only an impression of great velocity but also the first standard broadband deer panting and exhausted. [...] The scene is a forest and darting through the forest so fast that it can barely be seen is the elusive figure of a supersonic deer. After a few seconds the movie stops and a competition is suggested between standard broadband and supersonic broadband by the use of two sets of words which move quickly together to say “SUPERSONIC BROADBAND vs STANDARD BROADBAND”. The scene clears and then a split screen appears with two deers racing against each other. The deer representing the supersonic broadband gets faster and faster before finally taking flight passing through the sound barrier (with a concomitant shock wave) and disappearing from view. The standard broadband deer keeps running for a while before stopping with a spent expression on its face.

Perram J, Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1177 (29 October 2010) [4], [37].

[shitjudgessay]

The audiences for Cinderella and American Sniper would have few common members (hopefully).

Perram J, Dallas Buyers Club LLC v iiNet Limited [2015] FCA 317 (7 April 2015).

[shitjudgessay]

The ostensible basis for this application was that given the magnitude of that development the taxpayers were in a position where they simply, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, did not know that they did not know.

Perram J, Hua Wang Bank Berhad v Commissioner of Taxation (No 11) [2013] FCA 1055, [4] (16 October 2013).