Holmes v Angwin [1906] HCA 64

Holmes v Angwin [1906] HCA 64

The jurisdiction exercised under Part XV of the Electoral Act 1904 is that of a special tribunal consisting of a Judge of the Supreme Court as persona designata, not the Supreme Court in the sense contemplated by sec. 73 of the Constitution, and its decisions are final and conclusive without appeal; accordingly, no appeal lies to the High Court from such decisions.

Parties
Appellant: Holmes; Respondent: Angwin
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 1906
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion to Rescind Leave to Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed for want of competency
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Court of Disputed Returns, Appeals From Election Decisions, Supreme Court Jurisdiction Under Constitution
Constitutional Law Electoral Law Jurisdiction of Court of Disputed Returns Appeals From Election Decisions Supreme Court Jurisdiction Under Constitution

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Holmes

Appellant

Angwin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion to Rescind Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Supreme Court exercising jurisdiction under the Electoral Act 1904 is the Supreme Court for purposes of appeals under sec. 73 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether an appeal lies to the High Court from decisions of the Court of Disputed Returns
  3. 3 The effect of provisions declaring decisions 'final and conclusive'

Ratio Decidendi

The jurisdiction exercised under Part XV of the Electoral Act 1904 is that of a special tribunal consisting of a Judge of the Supreme Court as persona designata, not the Supreme Court in the sense contemplated by sec. 73 of the Constitution, and its decisions are final and conclusive without appeal; accordingly, no appeal lies to the High Court from such decisions.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed for want of competency

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs