Cole v The Commonwealth [1961] HCA 87

Cole v The Commonwealth [1961] HCA 87

The order refusing a new trial limited to damages prejudiced the appellant by finally denying her opportunity to recover damages greater than £1,322, and her bona fide claim could reasonably involve at least £1,500 more than the verdict. The order therefore fell within s. 35 (1) (a) of the Judiciary Act Cth, so the appeal was competent as of right.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Competency of Appeal as of Right / Objections to Competency and Application for Special Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Objections to competency overruled with costs; application for special leave to appeal not dealt with as unnecessary.
Legal Topics
['competency of Appeal' 'appeal as of Right' 'judiciary Act S 35(1)(a)' 'new Trial Limited to Damages' 'inadequate Damages']
['appellate Procedure' 'jurisdiction' 'personal Injury Damages'] ['competency of Appeal' 'appeal as of Right' 'judiciary Act S 35(1)(a)' 'new Trial Limited to Damages' 'inadequate Damages']

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 Concerning Competency of Appeal as of Right / Objections to Competency and Application for Special Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Full Court order dismissing the plaintiff's appeal from a jury verdict was a judgment given or pronounced for or in respect of a sum or matter at issue amounting to or of the value of £1,500 under s. 35 (1) (a) of the Judiciary Act Cth." 'Whether refusal of a new trial limited to damages involved directly or indirectly a claim, demand, or question respecting a civil right amounting to or of the value of £1,500.' "Whether the appellant's claim to damages exceeding the verdict by at least £1,500 provided a proper basis for an appeal as of right."]

Ratio Decidendi

The order refusing a new trial limited to damages prejudiced the appellant by finally denying her opportunity to recover damages greater than £1,322, and her bona fide claim could reasonably involve at least £1,500 more than the verdict. The order therefore fell within s. 35 (1) (a) of the Judiciary Act Cth, so the appeal was competent as of right.

Court Disposition

Objections to competency overruled with costs; application for special leave to appeal not dealt with as unnecessary.

Orders

  • ['Objections to competency overruled with costs.' 'It is unnecessary to deal with the application for special leave to appeal.']