Bardelmeyer v Whitely

The parties in this matter were Bardelmeyer, the applicant, and Whitely, the respondent. The case concerned an appeal from a decision of a single judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, submitting that the decision under appeal was in direct conflict with earlier decisions of the same court. The applicant also highlighted the significant public importance of the case, noting that approximately 10,000 people were dealt with for the relevant offence in the preceding year.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether special leave to appeal should be granted. This involved determining if the applicant had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the High Court to hear the appeal, particularly in light of the perceived conflict between decisions of the Victorian Supreme Court and the absence of a right of appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria under the then-applicable legislation. The applicant argued that the case was important due to its wide ramifications.

The Court's reasoning focused on the procedural avenue for appeal. It was established that under the old Magistrates Court Act, an unsuccessful litigant before a single judge of the Supreme Court could not appeal to the Full Court. However, it was noted that legislative amendments, effective from 1 September 1991, would introduce such a right of appeal. The applicant referred to section 49(1)(f)(i) of the Road Safety Act, which defines an offence related to furnishing a sample of breath for analysis. The Court's discussion indicated a prior consideration of this section, though it did not appear to have been a particularly engaging matter for the judges previously.