Clough v Leahy [1904] HCA 38
The Commission was lawfully appointed for a public purpose and did not involve any unlawful interference with the administration of justice or private rights. The respondent had no reasonable excuse for refusing to be sworn before the Commission; thus, the prohibition granted by the Supreme Court was set aside.
- Parties
- Appellant: Croven; Respondent: Leany
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 December 1904
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / High Court of Australia, Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Royal Commissions, Executive Powers, Judicial Power, Industrial Arbitration, Refusal to Give Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Croven
Appellant
Leany
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia, Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether it is lawful for the Crown to issue a Royal Commission of inquiry into matters involving litigation already decided by a court
- 2 Whether refusal to be sworn and give evidence before the Commission was justified by reasonable excuse under the Royal Commissioners Evidence Act (No. 23 of 1901)
Ratio Decidendi
The Commission was lawfully appointed for a public purpose and did not involve any unlawful interference with the administration of justice or private rights. The respondent had no reasonable excuse for refusing to be sworn before the Commission; thus, the prohibition granted by the Supreme Court was set aside.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Order making rule absolute for prohibition discharged
- Rule Nisi discharged with costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment