Collett v Loane [1966] HCA 71

Collett v Loane [1966] HCA 71

By majority, the earlier dismissal and appeal did not deprive the magistrate of jurisdiction to hear the application dated 4th April 1966. The prior decision was conclusive only as to the applicant's conscientious beliefs at the time relevant to the earlier application, while the later application raised an issue whether he then held beliefs within s. 29A (2). The magistrate therefore had a duty to hear and determine that application, and mandamus should issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Mandamus/order to Compel Exercise of Federal Jurisdiction / High Court Motion After Magistrate Declined Jurisdiction to Hear Second National Service Act Application
Outcome
Application granted; order made directing the respondent magistrate to hear and determine the applicant's application, with costs against the respondent Minister.
Legal Topics
['mandamus' 'conscientious Objection' 'finality of Court of Review Decision' 'jurisdiction of Court of Summary Jurisdiction']
['administrative Law' 'federal Jurisdiction' 'national Service'] ['mandamus' 'conscientious Objection' 'finality of Court of Review Decision' 'jurisdiction of Court of Summary Jurisdiction']

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

Application for Mandamus/order to Compel Exercise of Federal Jurisdiction / High Court Motion After Magistrate Declined Jurisdiction to Hear Second National Service Act Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a magistrate had jurisdiction under s. 29B of the National Service Act 1951-1965 Cth to hear a second application by the applicant for an order under s. 29A (2).' "Whether the earlier dismissal of the applicant's application, affirmed by a court of review and made final and conclusive by s. 29C (7), precluded the later application." 'Whether mandamus should issue directing the magistrate to hear and determine the later application.']

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the earlier dismissal and appeal did not deprive the magistrate of jurisdiction to hear the application dated 4th April 1966. The prior decision was conclusive only as to the applicant's conscientious beliefs at the time relevant to the earlier application, while the later application raised an issue whether he then held beliefs within s. 29A (2). The magistrate therefore had a duty to hear and determine that application, and mandamus should issue.

Court Disposition

Application granted; order made directing the respondent magistrate to hear and determine the applicant's application, with costs against the respondent Minister.

Orders

  • ['Order that the respondent Edward Noel Loane hear and determine the application of Noel Edgar Collett made on the fourth day of April 1966 for an order pursuant to the National Service Act 1951-1965 Cth and the National Service Regulations made thereunder that he is a person who holds a conscientious belief that...