O'Sullivan v Morton [1911] HCA 27; (1911) 12 CLR 390 (15 June 1911)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

O'Sullivan Plaintiff, Appellant; and Morton Defendant, Respondent.

H C of A

On appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

15 June 1911

Griffith C.J., Barton and O'Connor JJ.

Bryant (with him Cohen), for the appellant.

The judgment of the Court was delivered by—

Griffith C.J.

It is not the practice of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to grant leave to appeal as to costs. It is said in the books that that is only done when the Court below has no jurisdiction. In any case it is a matter of discretion, and, as I at present interpret the two orders, the difference between them will in the result only come to some £50. So that the matter in dispute is not substantial.

If, on the other hand, there is a substantial matter in dispute, as contended for by Mr. Bryant, then another aspect of the case presents itself. àBeckett J. made what he thought a just order and what undoubtedly would have been a just order, but he thought that he could not do so. The Full Court, however, thought that he could. Under these circumstances, the order made by the Full Court being manifestly just, I think it would be very unusual to grant special leave to appeal unless for something more than a mere technical error. Special leave to appeal will therefore be refused.

Special leave to appeal refused.

Solicitor, for the appellant, A. J. Mollison.