Liston v Davies Relator [1937] HCA 22

Liston v Davies Relator [1937] HCA 22

The High Court held that the jurisdiction for a private relator to seek an information in the nature of quo warranto had not been extinguished by statutory repeal in Victoria; the common law right to proceed in this fashion survived, providing a proper procedural foundation for the relator's application. Additionally, the exercise of procedural discretion by the Supreme Court regarding whether to state certain legal issues as a special case before trial was not capable of appellate review absent error.

Parties
Applicant: John James Liston; Respondent: David Taylor Norris Davies
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Application (appeal) / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia From Decisions of the Supreme Court of Victoria (gavan Duffy J. and Full Court)
Outcome
Special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Quo Warranto, Standing of Relator, Election Validity, Judicial Discretion in Procedural Matters
Administrative Law Electoral Law Civil Procedure Quo Warranto Standing of Relator Election Validity Judicial Discretion in Procedural Matters

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 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John James Liston

Applicant

David Taylor Norris Davies

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Application (appeal) / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court of Australia From Decisions of the Supreme Court of Victoria (gavan Duffy J. and Full Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether quo warranto proceedings can be instituted by a private relator in Victoria after the repeal of 9 Anne c. 25
  2. 2 Whether sufficient legal criteria were present for granting an order nisi for information in the nature of quo warranto
  3. 3 Whether procedural discretion to refuse to state special case was properly exercised

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the jurisdiction for a private relator to seek an information in the nature of quo warranto had not been extinguished by statutory repeal in Victoria; the common law right to proceed in this fashion survived, providing a proper procedural foundation for the relator's application. Additionally, the exercise of procedural discretion by the Supreme Court regarding whether to state certain legal issues as a special case before trial was not capable of appellate review absent error.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal refused.