Charles Waterstreet (previously) may declare bankruptcy, after being found to owe the ATO over $400,000 because he “failed to pay income tax in the financial years of 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, and did not pay subsequent penalties”.

The judgment is quite something. Waterstreet failed to turn up in court, and tried to withdraw his defence “without prejudice”. The judge couldn’t understand what this meant, so went ahead and considered his defence anyway:

Looking through the file, the defendant did serve two affidavits in these proceedings, but neither of those addresses substantive issues in the case… A statement that a party can neither confirm nor deny the allegations is not a form of pleading that is generally accepted.

But the most scathing judicial deadpan was this:

I note the explanation of believing the hearing was tomorrow and not today. While this is a two day hearing, and that may perhaps be a part of the explanation for his thinking it was on tomorrow, he had not only legal representation but his own experience to draw upon to know that when a hearing is listed for two days it commences on the first day, and not on the second.