Corbett v R [1932] HCA 36

Corbett v R [1932] HCA 36

The warrant of possession in question was validly issued and executed: (1) as issuance was permitted by a justice other than the one who adjudicated under the Justices Act; (2) as its address and execution conformed sufficiently to the Act; (3) as the period for enforcement was validly set per the ordinary meaning of the statute; and (4) as the landlord’s communication to police did not withdraw the authority conferred by the warrant. The right of peremptory challenge of talesmen existed under the Jury Act. New trial was properly ordered due to jury empanelment irregularities and possibly improper judicial comment.

Parties
Applicants/respondents: Corbett and others; Respondent/applicant: The King
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal and Civil Combined (special Leave to Appeal) / Applications for Special Leave to Appeal From the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales
Outcome
Applications for special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Warrant of Possession, Jury Empanelling and Challenge, Police Powers and Duties, Rights of Accused Regarding Statements and Jury Challenges
Landlord and Tenant Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Ejectment Warrant of Possession Jury Empanelling and Challenge Police Powers and Duties Rights of Accused Regarding Statements and Jury Challenges

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 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Corbett and others

Applicants/respondents

The King

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal and Civil Combined (special Leave to Appeal) / Applications for Special Leave to Appeal From the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a warrant of possession was invalid if issued by a justice not party to the adjudication under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1899-1930 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the warrant is invalid if not addressed to constables of or acting in the correct district
  3. 3 Whether the timing specified in the warrant for execution complied with the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The warrant of possession in question was validly issued and executed: (1) as issuance was permitted by a justice other than the one who adjudicated under the Justices Act; (2) as its address and execution conformed sufficiently to the Act; (3) as the period for enforcement was validly set per the ordinary meaning of the statute; and (4) as the landlord’s communication to police did not withdraw the authority conferred by the warrant. The right of peremptory challenge of talesmen existed under the Jury Act. New trial was properly ordered due to jury empanelment irregularities and possibly improper judicial comment.

Court Disposition

Applications for special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • Special leave to appeal refused for both parties (applicants and the Crown).