Gurnett v Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2] [1956] HCA 29

Gurnett v Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd [No 2] [1956] HCA 29

By majority, the application was refused because the function of granting an indemnity certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 N.S.W. was collateral to the determination of the appeal and formed no part of the judgment inter partes that the Supreme Court ought to have given; consequently s. 37 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1955 did not authorise the High Court to exercise that discretion. Dixon C.J. considered the High Court had power to add such a provision but would have refused the certificate as a matter of discretion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for an Indemnity Certificate Under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 N.s.w. / Application After High Court Allowed an Appeal and Ordered a New Trial
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
["suitors' Fund Indemnity Certificate" 'high Court Appellate Powers' 'costs of Appeal' 'question of Law']
['civil Procedure' 'costs' 'appellate Jurisdiction'] ["suitors' Fund Indemnity Certificate" 'high Court Appellate Powers' 'costs of Appeal' 'question of Law']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for an Indemnity Certificate Under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 N.s.w. / Application After High Court Allowed an Appeal and Ordered a New Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the High Court could add to its appellate order a provision granting an indemnity certificate under s. 6 of the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 N.S.W. in respect of costs of the appeal in the Supreme Court of New South Wales." "Whether the grant of an indemnity certificate was part of the judgment or order the Supreme Court ought to have made, or instead a collateral function outside the High Court's appellate jurisdiction." 'If the High Court had power to grant the certificate, whether the discretion should be exercised in favour of the defendant respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the application was refused because the function of granting an indemnity certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 N.S.W. was collateral to the determination of the appeal and formed no part of the judgment inter partes that the Supreme Court ought to have given; consequently s. 37 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1955 did not authorise the High Court to exercise that discretion. Dixon C.J. considered the High Court had power to add such a provision but would have refused the certificate as a matter of discretion.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['Application refused.']