iscover Contempt charges for barrister who shirked Tax Office
TaxAmid a finding of civil contempt, the NSW Supreme Court learnt a Sydney barrister had failed to lodge his business activity statements and tax returns for almost a decade.
The NSW Supreme Court was highly critical of barrister Philip Bates for his failure to produce his 2014–2023 business activity statements (BAS) and tax returns for about five months.
Of most concern was the fact that Bates consented to the making of the first of the production orders despite knowing he had not lodged his BAS or tax returns since September 2016.
Bates also sought to claim he did not make partial production of the documents he did hold because his opponent, Sir Anthony Mason Chambers, had refused to accept this offer.
“These submissions are factually inaccurate, without merit and disingenuous,” Justice David Hammerschlag said.
Bates has been locked in a fee dispute with Sir Anthony Mason Chambers for more than $112,000 in unpaid floor fees.
He conceded to owing just over half but denied liability to pay due to a cross-claim for recovery of money he says he advanced to his former chambers. This has been denied by chambers.
The dispute was originally listed in the NSW District Court but was moved up on Bates’ application, having contended his defence may involve principles of equitable set-off.
The Supreme Court retained orders that Bates was to produce the BAS and tax returns by the morning of 9 March.
Bates failed to produce the material until September despite repeat requests by chambers over the prior months. In May, a registrar also ordered that they be produced by June.
Justice Hammerschlag said that beyond a “passing reference” to an appointment with a new tax agent, “there was no disclosure, let alone a truthful one, as to why no documents had been produced or why partial production was foreshadowed”.
When the BAS and tax returns were produced in September, there was no explanation for the default, but Bates did provide an affidavit that pointed to his accountant’s injury, which caused a “sudden and unexpected withdrawal” from work.
In this same affidavit, Bates apologised for the delay and asked the court not to make a serious finding of contempt against him.
Justice Hammerschlag rejected the barrister’s contentions that his non-compliance was “inadvertent and not wilful”, noting he is an experienced legal practitioner and that he had failed to make disclosure of the documents he did have.
Further, Bates gave evidence that he sought to make an appointment with his accountant, but for a date after which he would have already been in breach of the notice to produce.
“He was repeatedly pressed for production and continued to produce nothing without explanation,” Justice Hammerschlag said.
“There was no or no adequate response from his solicitor to the multiple requests from chambers’ solicitors. It must be inferred that his solicitor acted on instructions.”
The court noted Bates appeared himself in the proceedings despite having had a solicitor on the record.
This is despite the fact that Bates will be a principal witness in the substantive proceedings and a witness on the motion.
Under Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015, a barrister is prohibited from being briefed in those circumstances.
“The concept of him employing a solicitor who then briefs him in his own case is, to put it mildly, of concern, from the point of view of each of them,” Justice Hammerschlag said.
The day before the decision was published, Justice Hammerschlag said his chambers received a notice of intention to file notice of ceasing to act from Bates’ solicitor.
The matter has been stood over for a penalty determination.
Citation: Australian Continuing Legal Education Centre Pty Limited v Philip Bates [2026] NSWSC 1266.
Want to see more stories from trusted news sources?Make Accountants Daily a preferred news source on Google.