Lee v Evans [1964] HCA 65

Lee v Evans [1964] HCA 65

The majority held that the invitation proved on the charge particulars was an oral invitation to the Broadbents alone. It was not general, was not capable of being acted on by others, and the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that it formed part of an invitation to the public to deposit money with or lend money to the appellant using the business name. The Full Court erred in treating an invitation to individuals as members of the public as necessarily an invitation to the public under s. 4a (1).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Prosecution for an Offence Under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1928 1961 of South Australia / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, Which Had Reversed the Special Magistrate's Dismissal of the Complaint
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Topics
['meaning of "invitation to the Public"' 'use of Registered Business Name in Solicitation of Deposits or Loans' "appeal From Magistrate's Dismissal of Complaint" 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt']
['criminal Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'business Names and Fundraising Regulation'] ['meaning of "invitation to the Public"' 'use of Registered Business Name in Solicitation of Deposits or Loans' "appeal From Magistrate's Dismissal of Complaint" 'proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt']

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

Appeal in Prosecution for an Offence Under the Registration of Business Names Act, 1928 1961 of South Australia / Appeal to the High Court of Australia From the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, Which Had Reversed the Special Magistrate's Dismissal of the Complaint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant\'s oral invitation to Owen Claude Broadbent and John Noel Broadbent was an "invitation to the public" within s. 4a (1) of the Registration of Business Names Act, 1928-1961.' 'Whether an invitation to particular individuals as members of the public is necessarily an invitation to the public.' "Whether the evidence justified overturning the magistrate's refusal to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the statutory offence was proved."]

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the invitation proved on the charge particulars was an oral invitation to the Broadbents alone. It was not general, was not capable of being acted on by others, and the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that it formed part of an invitation to the public to deposit money with or lend money to the appellant using the business name. The Full Court erred in treating an invitation to individuals as members of the public as necessarily an invitation to the public under s. 4a (1).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Order of the Supreme Court set aside.' 'In lieu thereof order that the appeal to the Supreme Court be dismissed with costs.']