Legal Research
Cases
Hargrave v Slater

Hargrave v Slater

Case [2000] NSWSC 387 4 May 2000

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: [2000] 113 A Crim R 371

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Hargrave & Anor v Slater & Anor [2000] NSWSC 387

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 13120/99

HEARING DATE(S): 4 May 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 4 May 2000

PARTIES :

Scott Charles Hargrave and David Hargrave
(Plaintiffs)
v
Peter Robert Slater
(First Defendant)
Anthony Murray Esq.
(Second Defendant)

JUDGMENT OF: Davies AJ

LOWER COURT
JURISDICTION : Local Court

LOWER COURT
FILE NUMBER(S) : N/A

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Magistrate Murray

COUNSEL : P - Mr M R Aldridge SC & Mr J Pappas
1D - Mr P Saidi

SOLICITORS: P - Pappas, J - Attorney
1D - I V Knight, Crown Solicitor
2D - Submitting Appearance

CATCHWORDS: Prerogative relief - alternatively, leave to appeal - meaning of "manipulate" - ruling of Magistrate on status of witness as expert - whether prerogative relief can be granted when ruling within jurisdiction - whether relief should be granted in respect of interlocutory ruling in criminal proceedings

LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970, s65
Justices Act 1902, s104(4)
Chiropractors and Osteopaths Act 1991, s4

CASES CITED: Dickinson v Perrignon (1973) 1 NSWLR 72
P & C Cantarella Pty Ltd v Egg Marketing Board (NSW) (1973) 2 NSWLR 366
Public Service Association of SA v Federated Clerks' Union of Aust (1991) 173 CLR 132
Craig v State of SA (1995) 184 CLR 163
R v Judges of the Federal Court of Aust; Ex parte Pilkington ACI (Operations) Pty Ltd (1978) 142 CLR 113
Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1
Newby v Moodie (1988) 83 ALR 523
Smiles v Commissioner of Taxation (1992) 37 FCR 538
Stergis v Boucher (1989) 86 ALR 174
Vereker v O'Donovan [1988] 6 Leg Rep SL 3

DECISION: Dismissed with costs.

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

DAVIES AJ
WEDNESDAY 4 MAY 2000

13120/99 - Scott Charles HARGRAVE & Anor v Peter Robert SLATER & Anor

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: This application was brought under s 65 of the Supreme Court Act, 1970, a section which enables the Court to make orders in the nature of prerogative relief, but which provides for the making of those orders by means of a simplified process.
2 In my opinion, the effect of that provision is not to change the principles of the substantive law or to materially enlarge the circumstances in which relief would have been granted under the old practice. That view was taken by Street CJ in Eq in Dickinson v Perrignon (1973) 1 NSWLR 72 at 83, where his Honour said:

"Where appropriate, as in a case such as the present, the substantive law underlying the grant of prerogative writs would have relevance to the exercise of jurisdiction under ss 75 and 65. But the court is relieved from the burden of evaluating a significant part of the technical and procedural considerations that have arisen to encumber rather than to enable the exercise of the court's supervisory powers."

See…

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 Hargrave v Slater

Details

AGLC: Hargrave v Slater [2000] NSWSC 387
Case: [2000] NSWSC 387
Decision Date: 4 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hargrave v Slater involved the applicant, Hargrave, seeking prerogative relief and, alternatively, leave to appeal against an interlocutory ruling made by a Magistrate. The ruling in question pertained to the status of a particular witness as an expert in the criminal proceedings against Hargrave. The application was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine the scope of prerogative relief and the appropriate circumstances under which such relief could be granted in respect of an interlocutory ruling in criminal proceedings.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were the interpretation of the term "manipulate" in the context of the application and whether prerogative relief could be granted in relation to a ruling that fell within the jurisdiction of the lower court. The court also had to consider whether relief should be granted concerning an interlocutory ruling in criminal proceedings. The applicant argued that the Magistrate's ruling regarding the witness's status as an expert was erroneous and that prerogative relief was necessary to correct the error. The court had to examine the scope and limits of prerogative relief, as well as the appropriate criteria for granting such relief in the context of interlocutory rulings in criminal matters.

The High Court held that the term "manipulate" in the application was not ambiguous and that the Magistrate's ruling on the witness's status as an expert was within their jurisdiction. The court further determined that prerogative relief could not be granted when the lower court's ruling was within its jurisdiction, as this would undermine the principle of finality in judicial decisions. Additionally, the court found that relief should not be granted in respect of an interlocutory ruling in criminal proceedings unless there were exceptional circumstances. The court dismissed the application, upholding the Magistrate's ruling and affirming the limited scope of prerogative relief in such cases.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the application. The decision underscores the importance of the principle of finality in judicial decisions and the limited circumstances in which prerogative relief may be granted in respect of interlocutory rulings in criminal proceedings.

Orders