Bayne v Blake (No 3)

The plaintiffs, Mary Bayne and Lila Elizabeth Bayne, appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal concerned an action brought by the plaintiffs against Arthur Palmer Blake, William Riggall, Robert Murray Smith, and Grace Bayne. The dispute arose from a transaction involving alleged breaches of trust by Grace Bayne in her capacity as administratrix of her mother's estate, of which the plaintiffs were beneficiaries. The plaintiffs claimed that certain real estate was improperly purchased and mortgaged, leading to its loss to the estate, and that other defendants, Blake and Riggall, acted with knowledge of these breaches of trust.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Supreme Court had properly granted summary judgment to the defendants. This involved determining if the action was frivolous or vexatious, and if the defendants had a good defence on the merits, particularly in light of previous litigation concerning the same or substantially similar matters between the parties. The plaintiffs argued that the doctrine of res judicata did not strictly apply as the claims were not identical in form to those previously decided.

The High Court, affirming the decision of Hood J., held that summary judgment was correctly granted. The Court reasoned that while the strict doctrine of res judicata might not be applicable, it was entitled to consider "the whole probabilities of the case, and the judicial history of the claim," as stated in *Lawrance v. Norreys (Ld.)*. Given that the core issues and facts had been extensively litigated in prior proceedings, including before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, any attempt to re-open these matters would be hopeless and without any possibility of success for the plaintiffs. The Court found it would be absurd to allow the dispute to be litigated again.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.