Edie Creek Pty Ltd v Symes [1929] HCA 37

Edie Creek Pty Ltd v Symes [1929] HCA 37

Because sec. 103B of the Mining Ordinance stated that orders of the Central Court are 'final and conclusive,' no appeal to the High Court lies from such orders, and the leave to appeal previously granted was ineffective.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Edie Creek Proprietary Limited; Respondent; Defendant: Symes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 1929
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Central Court of the Territory of New Guinea to High Court of Australia
Outcome
leave to appeal rescinded
Legal Topics
Appeals, Jurisdiction, Mining Claims, Finality of Orders
Civil Procedure Mining Law Appeals Jurisdiction Mining Claims Finality of Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edie Creek Proprietary Limited

Appellant; Plaintiff

Symes

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal From Central Court of the Territory of New Guinea to High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an appeal lies to the High Court of Australia from an order of the Central Court of the Territory of New Guinea when such order is declared 'final and conclusive' under the Mining Ordinance.

Ratio Decidendi

Because sec. 103B of the Mining Ordinance stated that orders of the Central Court are 'final and conclusive,' no appeal to the High Court lies from such orders, and the leave to appeal previously granted was ineffective.

Court Disposition

leave to appeal rescinded

Orders

  • Leave to appeal rescinded.
  • No order as to costs.