Constitutional Law (Cth)—Courts—Matrimonial Causes
Constitutional Law (Cth)—Privy Council—Appeal from State Supreme Court invested with federal jurisdiction—Matter arising under law made by Common- Commonwealth Parliament—Raised by defence—Whether court exercising concurrent State and federal jurisdiction—The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), s. 76 (ii.)—Judiciary Act 1901-1968 (Cth), ss. 39, 40. Courts—Ouster of jurisdiction—Public policy—Proceedings for divorce—Agreement between husband and wife concerning maintenance—Whether invalid—Whether invalidity derived from common law or statute—Matrimonial Causes Act 1959-1966 (Cth). Matrimonial Causes—Agreement between husband and wife concerning maintenance—Whether enforceable—Whether attempt to oust jurisdiction of court—Matrimonial Causes Act 1959-1966 (Cth), ss. 5, 8, 23 (2) (3), 87 (1) (k).
Decisions
September 2. The following written judgments were delivered: - BARWICK C.J. The applicant seeks leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council from a decretal order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissing a suit in Equity brought by her against the executor and executrix of her deceased husband's estate. She sought a declaration that she is entitled to be paid by the executor and executrix certain sums of money as set out in a deed entered into between the applicant and her husband. These sums of money constituted permanent maintenance agreed to be paid by the husband at a time when matrimonial proceedings under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959 (Cth) were pending in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. By the deed the deceased convenanted for himself his heirs, executors and administrators to pay such sums of money during the lifetime of the applicant. (at p372)
2. The defence to the applicant's claim was an assertion that the relevant covenant of the deed was void as being against public policy because it was said that it attempted to "oust" the jurisdiction of the Court. (at p372)
3. The application for special leave was made to the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal Division) but was removed into this Court under s. 40 of the Judiciary Act 1901-1964 (Cth) upon the motion of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth. The question for the decision of this Court is whether the decretal order dismissing the applicant's suit was made by the Supreme Court in the exercise of a jurisdiction invested in the Supreme Court by s. 39 (2) of the Judiciary Act. If it was, no appeal may be brought therefrom to Her Majesty in Council; see s. 39 (2) (a). (at p372)
4. I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared in this matter by my brother Walsh. The full facts and circumstances of the case are there set out and I have no need to repeat or supplement any of them. My brother expresses his conclusion that this Court upon the removal into it under s. 40 of this application for leave to appeal has jurisdiction to entertain and to grant or to refuse the application.…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Felton v Mulligan
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Felton v Mulligan [1971] HCA 39
Case
[1971] HCA 39
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia heard an appeal in *Felton v Mulligan*. The dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant's negligent driving caused the accident and his subsequent injuries.
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the plaintiff's claim was barred by the provisions of the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW). Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the plaintiff had commenced his action within the time prescribed by the Act, or if any exceptions to the limitation period applied.
The Court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW) and its application to the facts of the case. The judges considered the relevant sections of the Act concerning the commencement of proceedings and the circumstances under which time limitations could be extended or disapplied. The Court analysed the evidence presented to determine if the plaintiff had established grounds for an extension of time, such as the existence of a "special circumstance" or if the defendant had been guilty of fraud or concealment. The principles of statutory interpretation and the established case law on limitation periods were applied to reach their decision.
The Court ultimately found that the plaintiff's action was out of time and that no sufficient grounds existed to permit an extension. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.