Principles of English Law of Obligations

Question: Discuss about the Principles of English Law of Obligations. Answer: Introduction: The current case study is concerned with the payroll tax on wages paid to the employees concerning the civil aviation facility at the New Castle Airport. New castle airport (NAL) sought after the decision of the chief commissioner of the state revenue to gain access of the new castle airport ltd concerning the payroll tax. New Castle Airport Ltd used to manage the facility under the delegations from the New Castle city council and the port Stephens shire council. According to the judgement, it was held that the wages paid by New Castle Airport Ltd were deemed to have been paid by the council under section 49 of the interpretation act 1947 (Burda and Weder 2015). The commissioner held that wages paid was exempted under section 58 of the Payroll tax act 2007. Outline of the section breached: The employment of workforce by New Castle Airport Ltd was considered as incidental to the performance concerning its delegated functions. It is noteworthy to denote that the employment of workforce and payment of their wages is considered as the means by which the delegated factions were exercised. As stated under section 49 (6) of the interpretation act that a delegate while exercising the delegated functions may exercise any other functions which is incidental to the delegated functions. In the current case section 49 (4) is applicable (Sugin 2014.). As stated under section 49 (4) that a delegate exercises a delegated functions when the function is incidental within the function of the interpretation act. The chief commissioner laid down its argument by stating that section 49 (6) is applicable only in the execution of delegated functions and it is not related with the exercise of incidental functions. The commissioner stated that the delegated functions must be included in the exercise of functions, which is incidental thereto. The chief commissioner further argued that while employing staff New Castle Airport Ltd acted personally. Hence, the agreement of employment was made personally amid the each employee and the New Castle Airport Ltd. NAL took out its own name in the policy of the workers compensation insurance. It was considered as consistent with its acting as the council delegate. As stated under Federal commissioner of taxation v comber 1958 the chief commissioner gave in that such an estimated provision is to be interpreted sternly and just for the purpose for which resort is to be had. As stated by the chief commissioner that section 49 (6) existed with the objective of determining whether the delegator exercised the statutory functions. According to information, obtained Section 49 (6) needs to be given literal interpretation. New Castle Airport Ltd employed workers with the objective of performing its delegated functions (Antn 2014). The must be understood as an incidental functions however New Castle Airport Ltd performed such functions in order to exercise its delegated functions. It is noteworthy to denote that the New Castle Airport Ltd activities of recruiting workforce and paying them are considered to have been done by the councils. Except for anything stated in the payroll tax act or in the instrument of delegation reflecting a contradictory inten tion, the effect of section 49 (6) is deemed that the council have paid the wages by New Castle Airport Ltd. New Castle Airport Ltd hardly indicates any kind of incongruity amid the purpose of the exemption stated under section 58 along with the application of exemption to New Castle Airport Ltd through section 49 (6) of the interpretation act. It is noteworthy to denote that if the airport operated at loss the council may be required to indemnify the New Castle Airport Ltd in regard to the expenses it incurred. By assuming that section 49 (6) is not given a literal interpretation or if NAL were not applying the delegated factions. Thus, it would not be entitled to indemnity from the council concerning the expenses that were incurred appropriately (Miller and Oats 2016). There is no reason to believe that exemption was undoubtedly available to the council had they performed the functions in the form of joint venture by making use of their own staff without the interposition of New Castle Airport Ltd. This is because New Castle Airport Ltd is not entitled for any kind of exemption benefit. Background of the case: New Castle Airport Ltd was incorporated during the year 1993 on May 25 in the form of limited company by guarantee. It consisted of the two members namely Newcastle City Council and the Port Stephens Shire Council. New Castle Airport Ltd administers the civil aviation facilities at the Newcastle Airport on behalf of the Port Stephen Shire Council. During the relevant period, an instrument of delegation is issued together by New Castle Airport Ltd and Port Stephen Council and delegated the authority to create, develop, maintain and control the facility for the conduct of civil aviation (Woellner et al. 2016). The facilities consisted of supporting the activities, service and the facility, which was within the meaning of the section 24 of the act concerning the civil area of Williamstown airport. During the applicable stage of period New Castle Airport Ltd entered into an agreement concerning employment with numerous persons and paid wages to those persons (Barkoczy 2016). New Castle Airport Ltd asserted that in accordance with the section 49 (6) of the interpretation act the sum of wages paid by it to its employees constituted in the form of delegate of the council. Thus, it must be taken into the considered that the councils have paid the wages remunerated. The chief commissioner asserted that the employment of the employees was the wages paid by the New Castle Airport Ltd was not considered as an act of the council. The delegators within the purpose of the section 49 (6) of the interpretation act asserted that there was no express delegation of the councils function of employment. In addition to this, the chief commissioner asserted that the activities of the employees are directed towards the operation of the airport (Saad 2014). The commissioner further laid down that the function of the airport does not constituted delegated functions under the instruments of delegation and thus does not falls under section 49 (6) of the interpretation act. Analysis of the decision The Honorary Judge has found that the function of the council for employment is not delegated expressly. The two functions that were delegated by council include provisions of service and facilities and the function of carrying out activities in the airport. The court held that the employment of an individual is a means of performing the function (Painter and Holmes 2015). The employment is incidental to the performance of the function and hence it falls under the section 49(4) of the Interpretation Act. It was found by the court that a delegate exercises a delegated function if the delegate exercises a function that is incidental to the delegated function. The judgment also discussed whether Operation was included in the delegated function. In this case, court held that the function conducted by NAL through its employees for operating the airport falls within the terms of delegation (Honeyball 2014). However it should be noted that though it is not separately mentioned but operating the airport should be included as part of the delegated function. It should be included because the meanings of the terms develop and maintain the facilities and service of the airport is broad enough to include the act of operating the airport. Therefore, it was held by the court that employment of worker is an incidental function and it is the part of the delegated function of the NAL. Therefore, it was held that the employment done in NAL is considered to be done on behalf of the council as per section 49(6) of the Interpretation Act (Burrows 2015). Therefore, the wages that have been paid by the NAL is considered to be paid by the council therefore, it is exempted under section 58 of PTA. The court therefore revoked the assessment of the chief commissioner and ordered that the commissioner should pay the tax (Cabrelli 2016). There was alternative argument that was made by the NAL. NAL argued that wages should be exempted because the money that was used by the NAL to pay wages was held by the trust. However it was difficult to understand how the property was held through trust by the NAL when the all functions were delegated to the council. Including the receipts that was received from the property was taken to be received by the council (Witting 2015). It was argued by the NAL that the council held property on trust and the wages were paid from the property. Therefore it can be said that wages is paid by the council within the meaning of section 58 of the Payroll Act. This argument was based on the judgment of Glebe Administration Board V Commissioner of Payroll Tax (1987). The argument made by the NAL was not accepted by the court because the main logic behind the argument is that money paid was of the council. If the meaning of section 49(6) is not that have been stated by the court then moneys held on trust by the NAL is considered to be used for paying the wages. The assumption of the NAL was not correct that the councils owned the moneys beneficially (Weatherspoon 2014). The liabilities for payment of wages have been incurred for administering the trust. The liability incurred by the trust can be paid from the property of the trust. The trust had the preferred beneficial interest on the money that was used for paying the wages (Kramer 2014). The legal ownership of the money belonged to the trust so it was used to pay the wages. The council had the legal right to be the beneficiary of the property of the trust. However, this right was deferred by the liabilities that have been incurred by the NAL during its operation as held in the case of Kemtron I ndustries Pty Limited V Commissioner of Stamp duties (1984). The NAL argued that the right to pay out of the property of trust is given to property that have not been lien or charged because it affects the beneficial right to the property of the trust by the owners. The right of the trustee as in the nature of the lien is a valid argument in case there is a change in the trustee. However, this argument is not appropriate in case of liability towards creditors. In the case of Lemery Holdings Pty ltd V Reliance Financial, service Pty Ltd the rights to indemnity of the trustees are described as an interest in the assets of the trust. It was held that a holder of the property could not bring an action of possession that is subject to lien. The trustee has the right of the indemnity for the debt that was incurred properly. The beneficiaries cannot force the trustee to exercise their right for their own benefit. The trustee that has the possession of the trust property has the recourse to trust property for satisfying the right of indemnity (Hughes et al. 2015). The trustee is exercising its power as a legal owner and the beneficiary does not have the equity to restrain the right of the indemnity. If the trustee is exercising the right of indemnity then it is realizing the property. The beneficial interest on the trust property of the beneficiary is deferred by the trustees beneficial interest. Based on the reason that is given earlier wages should be taken as been by the council. Conclusion Based on the above discussion it can be concluded that the decision of the chief commissioner to issue the notice of assessment to NAL should be cancelled. It is also held that the NAL is entitled to receive the interest on the tax paid. Therefore, it can be said that decision given by the court that the commissioner should pay the cost due to the NAL is correct. References: Antn, A., 2014. The effect of payroll taxes on employment and wages under high labor informality.IZA Journal of Labor Development,3(1), p.20. Barkoczy, S., 2016. Foundations of Taxation Law 2016.OUP Catalogue. Burda, M.C. and Weder, M., 2015. Payroll Taxes, Social Insurance, And Business Cycles.Journal of the European Economic Association. Burrows, A., 2015.Principles of the English Law of Obligations. Oxford University Press, USA. Cabrelli, D., 2016.Employment Law in Context. Oxford University Press. Honeyball, S., 2014.Honeyball and Bowers' Textbook on Employment Law. Oxford University Press, USA. Hughes, W., Champion, R. and Murdoch, J., 2015.Construction contracts: law and management. Routledge. Kramer, A., 2014.The law of contract damages. Bloomsbury Publishing. Miller, A. and Oats, L., 2016.Principles of international taxation. Bloomsbury Publishing. Painter, R. and Holmes, A., 2015.Cases and materials on employment law. Oxford University Press, USA. Pechman, J.A., 2001.Federal tax policy(Vol. 23). Brookings Institution Press. Saad, N., 2014. Tax knowledge, tax complexity and tax compliance: Taxpayers view.Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences,109, pp.1069-1075. Sugin, L., 2014. Payroll Taxes, Mythology, and Fairness.Harv. J. on Legis.,51, p.113. Weatherspoon, F., 2014. Incorporating Mandatory Arbitration Employment Clauses into Collective Bargaining Agreements: Challenges and Benefits to the Employer and the Union. Witting, C., 2015.Street on Torts. Oxford University Press, USA. Woellner, R., Barkoczy, S., Murphy, S., Evans, C. and Pinto, D., 2016. Australian Taxation Law 2016.OUP Catalogue.