Ex Parte Richards [1934] HCA 4; (1934) 51 CLR 190 (4 April 1934)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ex Parte Richards.

H C of A

On appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

4 April 1934

Gavan Duffy C.J., Rich, Starke, Dixon, Evatt and McTiernan JJ.

McIntosh, for the applicant.

The following judgments were delivered:—

Gavan Duffy C.J.

We all think that, as the amount involved is so small, special leave to appeal should not be granted.

Rich J.

I think that the conclusion arrived at by Stephen J. and Judge Curlewis was right.

Starke J.

I feel that the decision under appeal is wrong, but as the amount involved is so small special leave to appeal should not be granted.

Dixon J.

I agree that special leave should be refused, notwithstanding that I am unable to agree with the decision appealed from and that the question cannot be said to be without some general importance. The money accepted by the now defendant in the former action in which it was plaintiff was paid in, with a denial of liability, in respect of all the causes of action, including that for the price of the articles in question in the present proceedings. When it took the money out of Court, the acceptance operated as a complete satisfaction of all the causes of action in respect of which it had been paid in. (See Beadon v. Capital Syndicate (Ltd.)[1].) But, although I think the decision of the majority of the Court was erroneous, the intervention of this Court is not justified by the nature of the case. As between the parties, the dispute is trivial. It involves less than £20, and, in mercy to them, I think the litigation should be brought to an end.

Evatt J.

I agree that the decisions of Stephen J. and of Judge Curlewis are correct, but that, for the reasons announced, special leave to appeal should not be granted. It will be little consolation to Mr. McIntosh's client, who now finds that after having paid for the suite he cannot get it, to know that he was right in his law; but this pronouncement of the Court will prevent the case being regarded as a precedent.

McTiernan J.

I do not think this is a case for special leave. I agree with the conclusion arrived at by Stephen J.

Application refused.

Solicitors for the applicant, Kershaw, Matthews, Lane & Glasgow.

[1] (1912) 28 T.L.R. 427.