Aidlaw was an “authorised person” under section 40A of the Stamps Act 1958. As an authorised person, it was responsible endorsing instruments with stamp duty and paying a sum equal to the sum endorsed to the Commissioner.
As a result of extensive investigations undertaken by the Commissioner, it was discovered that some time between 1999 and 2001, Aidlaw had underpaid significant sums that it had endorsed for stamp duty. The Commissioner therefore instituted the above proceeding against Aidlaw and six other defendants in order to recover the sums due to him.
The Supreme Court decided the matter in favour of the Commissioner and held that Aidlaw, along with two other defendants (being the prime movers behind Aidlaw) were liable to the Commissioner for significant sums that it had underpaid together with interests and costs.
