McCullin v Crawford

This case concerned an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria to the High Court of Australia. The dispute arose from an appeal to the Court of Petty Sessions by the owners of the City Family Hotel, Bendigo, against orders made by the Licences Reduction Board that reduced the rent payable by the occupier, Bryan McCullin. The owners contended that the rent reductions were excessive.

The legal issue before the High Court was whether, on an appeal under section 13 of the Licensing Act 1919, the Court of Petty Sessions had the jurisdiction to make an order that was less favourable to the appellant than the order against which the appeal was brought, particularly when the respondent had not given notice of appeal. The Supreme Court had previously held that such an order was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Petty Sessions.

The High Court determined that section 13 of the Licensing Act 1919 conferred upon the Court of Petty Sessions the power to rehear the entire case *de novo*, acting as a court of first instance. The Court reasoned that the language of the section, particularly the grant of power to do all such matters and things relating to the appeal in the same manner and to the same extent as it is empowered in its ordinary jurisdiction, indicated an intention for a broad rehearing. Furthermore, the absence of requirements for formal notice of appeal or grounds of appeal suggested that the appellate court was not confined to reviewing errors in the original determination but could make any order that the Licences Reduction Board could have made.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of the Supreme Court. The Court held that the Court of Petty Sessions had the jurisdiction to make orders less favourable to the appellant than the original Board orders, and therefore the rule nisi for certiorari should have been discharged. The owners were ordered to pay McCullin's costs in both the Supreme Court and the High Court.