Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v Gair [1954] HCA 73

Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v Gair [1954] HCA 73

The Court refused the application because an injunction restraining presentation of a Bill for the Royal Assent is very exceptional and should not be granted, and the applicant would have a remedy after assent with the possibility of urgent interlocutory relief if a prima facie case were made out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for an Injunction Restraining the Presentation of a Bill for the Royal Assent / Application
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['royal Assent' 'injunction Restraining Presentation of a Bill' 'interlocutory Relief' 'attorney General (n.s.w.) V. Trethowan']
['constitutional Law' 'equity'] ['royal Assent' 'injunction Restraining Presentation of a Bill' 'interlocutory Relief' 'attorney General (n.s.w.) V. Trethowan']

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

Application for an Injunction Restraining the Presentation of a Bill for the Royal Assent / Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an injunction should be granted restraining the presentation of a Bill for the Royal Assent.' "Whether refusal of the application should prejudice the question whether the judgments of the Supreme Court in Trethowan's Case were right or wrong on the issue excluded from special leave."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the application because an injunction restraining presentation of a Bill for the Royal Assent is very exceptional and should not be granted, and the applicant would have a remedy after assent with the possibility of urgent interlocutory relief if a prima facie case were made out.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['Application refused.']