De Bortoli v Kenny [1948] HCA 12

De Bortoli v Kenny [1948] HCA 12

The Supreme Court orders affirmed criminal convictions and did not themselves involve any civil right of the required value; the appellant's asserted losses were financial consequences of legal reasoning about the price notice, not questions involved in the curial orders. The appeals as of right were therefore incompetent. Special leave was refused because no point raised warranted reconsideration of Horsey v. Caldwell; the relevant amendments, including reg. 45B (ba) and reg. 6 (2) of 1946 Statutory Rules No. 19, were treated as curing the objection to the notice's validity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeals as of Right and Application for Special Leave to Appeal / High Court Consideration of Competency Objection and Special Leave Application
Outcome
Appeals struck out with costs. Special leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['appeal as of Right' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'statutory Prohibition' 'national Security (prices) Regulations' 'civil Right of Required Value' 'validity of Price Fixing Notice']
['appellate Jurisdiction' 'criminal Law' 'administrative Law' 'price Control Regulation'] ['appeal as of Right' 'special Leave to Appeal' 'statutory Prohibition' 'national Security (prices) Regulations' 'civil Right of Required Value' 'validity of Price Fixing Notice']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeals as of Right and Application for Special Leave to Appeal / High Court Consideration of Competency Objection and Special Leave Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether appeals lay as of right from Supreme Court orders discharging seven rules nisi for statutory prohibition concerning convictions under the National Security (Prices) Regulations.' 'Whether the Supreme Court orders indirectly involved a question respecting a civil right amounting to or of the value of £300 within s. 35 (1) (a) (2) of the Judiciary Act.' 'Whether special leave should be granted to challenge the validity of the price fixing notice said to have been made under par. 8 of Prices Regulations Order 1015.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court orders affirmed criminal convictions and did not themselves involve any civil right of the required value; the appellant's asserted losses were financial consequences of legal reasoning about the price notice, not questions involved in the curial orders. The appeals as of right were therefore incompetent. Special leave was refused because no point raised warranted reconsideration of Horsey v. Caldwell; the relevant amendments, including reg. 45B (ba) and reg. 6 (2) of 1946 Statutory Rules No. 19, were treated as curing the objection to the notice's validity.

Court Disposition

Appeals struck out with costs. Special leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Appeals struck out with costs.' 'Special leave to appeal refused.']