Cameron v Irwin

5 CLR 856

IRWIN AND OTHERS

RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

WESTERN AUSTRALIA. Appeal to High Court-Special - leave.

In an action in the Supreme Court of Western Australia the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £200, and judgment was entered accordingly. On MELBOURNE,

application to the Full Court to set aside the judgment on the ground of February 24.

absence of evidence, the Full Court reversed the judgment below and entered judgment for the defendants.

Special leave to appeal to the High Court was refused.

APPLICATION for special leave to appeal.

An action was tried in the Supreme Court of Western Australia at Kalgoorlie, by Burnside J. and a jury, by which the plaintiff Robert Miles Fletcher Cameron, a legally qualified

5 CLR 857

medical practitioner, sought to recover from the defendants H. C. Henry Offley Irwin and three others, who were also legally qualified medical practitioners, damages for injury sustained by reason of the defendants having combined to injure him in his profession. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for £200 damages, and judgment was entered accordingly.

The defendants applied to the Full Court to set aside the judgment on the ground that there was no evidence that the object of the defendants was to injure the plaintiff. On 23rd December 1907 the judgment was reversed and judgment was entered for the defendants with costs.

The plaintiff now applied to the High Court for special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Full Court.

Starke, for the appellant. The Full Court has entered judg- ment for the defendants without setting aside the verdict of the jury and without any motion to set it aside, and there were no grounds for setting it aside. There is no authority for such a course being taken.

[GRIFFITH C.J.-Special leave to appeal is never granted on a technical error.]

It is very important that the principle of not interfering with the verdict of a jury should be upheld.

[Villenewee Smith referred to Rules of Supreme Court, Order XXXVI. No. 10; National Mutual Life Association of Austral- asia Ltd. v. Kidman 1.]

There there was a motion for a new trial. [ISAACS J. referred to Scown v. Howarth 2; Ogilvie v. West Australian Mortgage and Agency Corporation 3.]

There was evidence from which reasonable men could find that the combination of the respondents, however well formed, was used to oppress the appellant and did injure him. [Counsel also referred to Martell v. Victorian Coal Miners' Association 4; Dublin, Wicklow and Wexford Railway Co. v. Slattery 5; Wakelin v. London and South Western Railway Co. 6.]

13 C.L.R., 160. 225 V.L.R., SS : 21 A.L.T., 36. 3(1896) A.C., 257. 429 V.L.R., 475, at p. 496 : 25 53 App. Cas., 1155. 612 App. Cas., 41.

5 CLR 858" text-full="5 CLR 858" text-short="5 CLR 858">5 CLR 858

Villeneuve Smith for the respondents, was not heard.

GRIFFITH C.J. The question is entirely one of fact. Special IRWIN.

leave will be refused, and the motion will be dismissed with costs.

Special leave refused. Solicitors, for the appellant, Gillott, Bates &Moir for Haynes, Robinson &Cox, Perth, for Keenan &Randall, Kalgoorlie.

Solicitor, for the respondents, Horace B. Joseph.

[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] McLAUGHLIN FREEHILL

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Solicitor and client-Retainer by lunatic-Costs of proceedings to set aside lunacy

order-Necessaries-Action by solicitor for costs-Pleadings-Ree judicata- Amendment. SYDNEY,

M. who had been declared insane by the Supreme Court, retained a April 22, 23.

solicitor to act for him in an application to have the lunacy order set aside. Before making the application the solicitor obtained an order from the Court directing that his costs of the application should in any event be paid by the committee out of M.'s estate. The application was then made and dismissed, and the previous order as to the solicitor's costs was embodied in the order dismissing the application. Before the costs had been paid M. recovered his sanity, and having been declared sane by the Court and having had the management of his estate restored to him, refused to pay the costs.

The appellant, Robert Miles Fletcher Cameron, a medical practitioner, sued the respondents, also medical practitioners, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia for damages for injury to his profession. A jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, awarding £200 in damages, and judgment was entered accordingly. The defendants then applied to the Full Court of Western Australia to set aside this judgment, arguing there was no evidence that their intention was to injure the plaintiff. The Full Court agreed, reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, and entered judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff sought special leave to appeal this decision to the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the High Court concerned whether the Full Court had erred in setting aside the jury's verdict and entering judgment for the defendants. Specifically, the appellant argued that the Full Court had no authority to enter judgment for the defendants without first setting aside the jury's verdict, and that there were no grounds to do so. The appellant contended that there was sufficient evidence from which reasonable men could conclude that the defendants' combination was used to oppress and injure him.

The High Court refused special leave to appeal. Griffith C.J. stated that the question was entirely one of fact. The Court implicitly accepted that the Full Court had the power to review the evidence and enter judgment for the defendants if it found no evidence to support the jury's verdict. The refusal was based on the assessment that the matter was primarily factual and did not raise a significant legal principle warranting appellate intervention.

Special leave to appeal was refused, and the motion was dismissed with costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established