MILLER v COTTER & ANOR [1999] NSWSC 854

MILLER v COTTER & ANOR [1999] NSWSC 854

Mandamus and certiorari were not available because the plaintiff showed no constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, error on the face of the record, or jurisdictional error, and s 112 of the Justices Act did not apply because the admission of evidence was not a final order. A permanent stay was refused because the loss of the original documents did not create exceptional unfairness going to the root of the trial: the key document had already been examined by an expert on behalf of the plaintiff in the earlier civil proceedings, other evidence was available, and the magistrate had power under s 48(4) of the Evidence Act 1995 to admit the copy document.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Summons Seeking a Declaration, Permanent Stay, Mandamus and Certiorari in Relation to Local Court Criminal Proceedings / Supreme Court Determination of Summons After the Local Court Admitted a Copy Document Into Evidence
Outcome
Summons dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['permanent Stay of Criminal Proceedings' 'procedural Unfairness' 'lost Original Documents' 'mandamus' 'certiorari' 'admission of Copy Documents']
['criminal Law' 'administrative Law' 'evidence'] ['permanent Stay of Criminal Proceedings' 'procedural Unfairness' 'lost Original Documents' 'mandamus' 'certiorari' 'admission of Copy Documents']

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

Civil Summons Seeking a Declaration, Permanent Stay, Mandamus and Certiorari in Relation to Local Court Criminal Proceedings / Supreme Court Determination of Summons After the Local Court Admitted a Copy Document Into Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the continuation of the Local Court criminal proceedings would be procedurally unfair because original documents, including the receipt dated 4 July 1994, had been lost and could not be examined by an expert.' "Whether orders in the nature of mandamus or certiorari were available in respect of the magistrate's admission of the copy document." 'Whether relief was available under s 112 of the Justices Act.' 'Whether a permanent stay of the criminal proceedings should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mandamus and certiorari were not available because the plaintiff showed no constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, error on the face of the record, or jurisdictional error, and s 112 of the Justices Act did not apply because the admission of evidence was not a final order. A permanent stay was refused because the loss of the original documents did not create exceptional unfairness going to the root of the trial: the key document had already been examined by an expert on behalf of the plaintiff in the earlier civil proceedings, other evidence was available, and the magistrate had power under s 48(4) of the Evidence Act 1995 to admit the copy document.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Declaration declined.' 'Stay of proceedings refused.' 'Summons dismissed with costs.']