Zimpel v Allard [1904] HCA 56

Zimpel v Allard [1904] HCA 56

Special leave to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to dispute jurisdiction in the Local Court, the amount involved was small, and the discretion to grant leave should not be exercised in these circumstances.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Zimpel; Respondent: Allard
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 1904
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
Special Leave to Appeal, Jurisdiction of Inferior Courts, Ejectment, Acquiescence
Practice and Procedure Special Leave to Appeal Jurisdiction of Inferior Courts Ejectment Acquiescence

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zimpel

Appellant

Allard

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether special leave to appeal should be granted concerning the jurisdiction of the Local Court in an ejectment action
  2. 2 Whether the judgment of the Local Court is conclusive for the purposes of founding an action of ejectment
  3. 3 Whether the appellant can impeach the Local Court judgment for want of jurisdiction when no objection was taken in that Court

Ratio Decidendi

Special leave to appeal was refused because the appellant failed to dispute jurisdiction in the Local Court, the amount involved was small, and the discretion to grant leave should not be exercised in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused