Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia v Inglis [1974] HCA 17

Commonwealth Trading Bank of Australia v Inglis [1974] HCA 17

The High Court lacked inherent power, on a private applicant's motion, to impose a general requirement that the respondents obtain leave before instituting future legal proceedings or lodging appeals; such restraints depend on statutory or rule-based authority and appeal rights cannot be negated or modified by inherent power. The Court did have inherent power to control applications in existing proceedings to prevent abuse of process, but by the time judgment was delivered the related appeal had been dismissed and any occasion for such an order had passed, so the application was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Seeking Orders Restraining Vexatious Legal Proceedings, Applications and Appeals Without Leave / High Court Application; Original Action Dismissed by a Justice of the Court and Appeal Had Been Lodged But Was Later Heard and Dismissed Before Judgment on This Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['vexatious Proceedings' 'inherent Jurisdiction' 'abuse of Process' 'interlocutory Applications' 'appeals']
['civil Procedure' 'high Court Jurisdiction'] ['vexatious Proceedings' 'inherent Jurisdiction' 'abuse of Process' 'interlocutory Applications' 'appeals']

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

Notice of Motion Seeking Orders Restraining Vexatious Legal Proceedings, Applications and Appeals Without Leave / High Court Application; Original Action Dismissed by a Justice of the Court and Appeal Had Been Lodged But Was Later Heard and Dismissed Before Judgment on This Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the High Court had inherent power, on the applicant's motion, to order that the respondents not institute future legal proceedings without leave of a Justice of the Court." 'Whether the High Court had inherent power to require the respondents to obtain leave before lodging appeals.' 'Whether the High Court had inherent power to control the making of applications in existing proceedings to prevent abuse of process.' 'Whether O. 63, r. 6(1) of the Rules of this Court abrogated or affected any inherent power relied upon by the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court lacked inherent power, on a private applicant's motion, to impose a general requirement that the respondents obtain leave before instituting future legal proceedings or lodging appeals; such restraints depend on statutory or rule-based authority and appeal rights cannot be negated or modified by inherent power. The Court did have inherent power to control applications in existing proceedings to prevent abuse of process, but by the time judgment was delivered the related appeal had been dismissed and any occasion for such an order had passed, so the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.']