Orr v Holmes [1948] HCA 16

Orr v Holmes [1948] HCA 16

By majority, the High Court held that the order for a new trial should not have been made. The defendants failed to show reasonable diligence because no inquiries were made of lottery agencies that could have supplied the evidence before trial, and the proposed evidence, even if accepted as proving that the ticket book was not in Holmes' shop on 12th August 1946, went only to the credibility of Orr's date and was not sufficiently decisive to justify setting aside a jury verdict. The Full Court's orders were therefore set aside and the trial judgment restored.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland Directing a New Trial After a Jury Verdict in a Civil Action for a Share of Lottery Prize Money / Leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Determined by the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed with costs; Full Court orders set aside; jury verdict and judgment restored.
Legal Topics
['new Trial' 'fresh Evidence' 'reasonable Diligence' 'jury Verdict' 'costs']
['civil Procedure' 'evidence'] ['new Trial' 'fresh Evidence' 'reasonable Diligence' 'jury Verdict' 'costs']

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

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Orders of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland Directing a New Trial After a Jury Verdict in a Civil Action for a Share of Lottery Prize Money / Leave to Appeal Granted; Appeal Determined by the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a new trial should be granted on the ground of discovery of fresh evidence about the date on which the winning lottery ticket book was issued.' 'Whether the defendants had shown that the fresh evidence could not, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered in time for the trial.' 'Whether the fresh evidence was sufficiently important or decisive that it would probably have influenced or changed the verdict.' "Whether the Full Court's further order as to costs and payment into court should stand."]

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the High Court held that the order for a new trial should not have been made. The defendants failed to show reasonable diligence because no inquiries were made of lottery agencies that could have supplied the evidence before trial, and the proposed evidence, even if accepted as proving that the ticket book was not in Holmes' shop on 12th August 1946, went only to the credibility of Orr's date and was not sufficiently decisive to justify setting aside a jury verdict. The Full Court's orders were therefore set aside and the trial judgment restored.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed with costs; Full Court orders set aside; jury verdict and judgment restored.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed with costs.' 'Orders of Full Court of 26th August 1947 and 18th March 1948 set aside.' 'Verdict and judgment thereon of Macrossan C.J. restored.' "Respondents to pay appellant's costs of appeal in Supreme Court."]