Fieman v Balas

47 CLR 107

BALAS AND OTHERS

RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS, Appeal-Trial by jury-General verdict-Appeal from judgment thereon.

An appeal does not lie to the High Court of Australia from a verdict of a jury, and, SO long as the verdict stands, an appeal from a judgment of the MELBOURNE, Supreme Court of a State given by the trial Judge in accordance with general verdict of a jury must fail.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

An action was brought in the Supreme Court of Victoria by John Fieman in which he claimed £3,000 damages from the defendants, Joseph Balas, Robert Leslie Forsyth and Hedley Frank Summons. The plaintiff's claim indorsed on the writ was against the defendant Balas for damages for procuring the certificates hereinafter mentioned and/or causing the plaintiff to be detained in the hospital for insane at Royal Park and elsewhere, and against the defendants Forsyth and Summons as medical practitioners for damages for negligence in giving certificates, on or about 18th June 1927, according to the form prescribed by the Lunacy Act 1915 (Vict.) whereby they certified, among other things, that they, Forsyth and Summons, had separately and personally examined the plaintiff and that he was insane, whereas in truth and in fact

47 CLR 108

the plaintiff was not insane whereby the plaintiff suffered damage The action was tried by Irvine C.J. and a jury of six. The jury brought in a general verdict for the defendants, and judgment was entered for the defendants accordingly.

The plaintiff applied to the High Court for an order that 'the whole of the judgment given and pronounced by his Honor the Chief Justice and the verdict of the jury was ordered that judgment should be entered for the defendants with costs to be taxed

be set aside and reversed, and that in lieu thereof it may be ordered that judgment be entered for the above-named appellant or alternatively that there be a new trial of the action."

D. Claude Robertson, for the appellant. Walker, for the respondent Balas. Robert Menzies K.C. and Reynolds, for the respondents Forsyth and Summons.

During the argument the following cases were referred to: Musgrove v. McDonald 1; The King v. Snow 2; Commonwealth V. Brisbane Milling Co. 3.

THE COURT delivered the following judgment :- This appeal must be dismissed. So long as the verdict stands the judgment is correct. In view of the authorities cited we cannot alter the verdict. The judgment must stand. This order is without prejudice to any application that may be made to the Supreme Court for a new trial. Appellant to pay the costs.

Appeal dismissed accordingly. Solicitors for the appellant, Loughrey &Douglas. Solicitor for the respondent Balas, J. H. S. Campbell. Solicitors for the respondents Forsyth and Summons, Seton Williams &Heathfield.

1(1905) 3 C.L.R. 132. 2(1915) 20 C.L.R. 315. 3(1916) 21 C.L.R 559

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John Fieman (the appellant) appealed to the High Court of Australia from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The action, tried by Irvine C.J. and a jury, concerned claims by the appellant against Joseph Balas for procuring certificates and causing his detention in a hospital for the insane, and against medical practitioners Robert Leslie Forsyth and Hedley Frank Summons for negligence in issuing those certificates. The appellant alleged that the certificates falsely certified his insanity, causing him damage. The jury returned a general verdict for the defendants.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether it had the jurisdiction to set aside a jury's general verdict and, consequently, to alter or overturn a judgment entered in accordance with that verdict. The appellant sought to have the judgment and the jury's verdict set aside, requesting either judgment to be entered in his favour or a new trial.

The High Court held that an appeal does not lie to the High Court from a verdict of a jury. The Court reasoned that so long as the jury's verdict stands, any judgment entered by the trial judge in accordance with that verdict is correct and cannot be altered by the High Court. The Court indicated that it was bound by the authorities cited and could not disturb the verdict.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria was affirmed. The Court noted that this dismissal was without prejudice to any application that might be made to the Supreme Court for a new trial. The appellant was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established