Company claimed qualifying Australian production expenditure of $7.7m
Allowing Screen Australia’s cross-appeal, the Australian Federal Court set aside the Administrative Review Tribunal’s second decision in connection with Little Monster Productions Pty Ltd (LMP), based on its lack of jurisdiction to issue such a decision.
LMP – the applicant in Little Monster Productions Pty Ltd v Screen Australia [2026] FCA 902 – was a film producer that worked on the film “Don’t Go Below.”
On 5 January 2018, LMP and related company Hive Studios International Pty Ltd executed a services agreement, which required LMP to pay $6,672,720 for Hive’s post-production on the film, and a production investment agreement, which obligated Hive to invest $7,454,519 in the film.
On 20 March 2023, LMP completed the film, released in Australian cinemas on 27 April 2023.
On or about 12 April 2023, before the respondent Screen Australia, LMP applied for a producer offset final certificate under Division 376 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1977. LMP claimed qualifying Australian production expenditure (QAPE) of $7,764,713 and a total expenditure of $7,785,829.
On 22 February 2024, Screen Australia issued LMP a final certificate amounting to $1,079,383. LMP applied for a review.
In its first decision dated 9 January 2025, the Administrative Review Tribunal found the following on a preliminary basis:
LMP’s solicitor sent the tribunal an email withdrawing its review application. However, on 1 April 2025, LMP applied to reinstate the review application.
In its second decision published on 24 September 2025, the tribunal determined that its prior dismissal of the review application was ineffective and affirmed Screen Australia’s decision under review.
In proceeding SAD233/2025, on 16 October 2025, LMP filed a notice of appeal against the tribunal’s 24 September 2025 decision under s 172 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act).
Screen Australia filed a notice of objection to competency on 30 October 2025 and a notice of cross-appeal on 6 November 2025.
LMP then altered its position. In proceeding NSD2136/2025, on 19 November 2025, LMP applied for an extension of time to appeal from the tribunal’s 9 January 2025 decision and a draft notice of appeal.
In NSD2136/2025, the Federal Court denied LMP’s application for an extension of time to appeal from the tribunal’s 9 January 2025 decision based on the proposed appeal’s incompetence. The court ordered LMP to pay Screen Australia’s costs, as agreed or assessed.
In SAD233/2025, the court allowed Screen Australia’s cross-appeal. The court set aside the tribunal’s 24 September 2025 decision for its lack of jurisdiction to make a substantive decision on the review.
Also in SAD233/2025, the court remitted the matter for the tribunal to determine LMP’s application for an extension of time under s 19 of the ART Act. The court otherwise dismissed LMP’s appeal.
Still in SAD233/2025, the court ordered LMP to pay 75 percent of Screen Australia’s costs of the proceeding, as agreed or assessed, considering LMP’s success in one area, specifically the remittal of its extension application.
The Federal Court of Australia based its orders on the following conclusions.
First, the court decided that the tribunal’s 9 January 2025 decision was not and did not purport to be the tribunal’s decision in the proceeding and was not the subject of an appeal under s 172 of the ART Act.
Second, the court ruled that the dismissal finally determined LMP’s review application, consequent upon the application’s withdrawal. The court explained that the tribunal’s second decision proceeded on an incorrect basis when it found that a jurisdictional error infected the dismissal.
Third, the court held that the tribunal had not determined LMP’s application to extend the time to issue a further review application under s 19 of the ART Act.
Enjoy this story? Read the tax law news on the main page!
