Messina v Bridie - [1966] HCA 20

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., McTiernan, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ.

MESSINA v. BRIDIE

(1966) 114 CLR 354

6 April 1966

Criminal Law

Criminal Law—Assault—Proceedings before justices—Hearing upon merits—Dismissal of complaint—Certificate of dismissal—When granted—Contents—Whether justice accepting a plea of autrefois acquit or convict may properly consider offence not proved—Crimes Act, 1900 (N.S.W.), s. 498*.

Decisions

April 6.
The following written judgments were delivered: -
BARWICK C.J. The respondent was charged and tried at Quarter Sessions at Sydney with assault of the appellant. He was acquitted. An information by the appellant in respect of the same assault which had not been proceeded with pending the outcome of the trial at Quarter Sessions was brought on for hearing before a stipendiary magistrate after the respondent had been acquitted. (at p355)

2. Upon being asked to state his defences, the respondent raised in documentary form the defence of autrefois acquit and orally the defence of not guilty. The police prosecutor who appeared on the hearing conceded that the respondent had been acquitted of the same offence, and accordingly the magistrate, as the papers show, held that the respondent's plea of autrefois acquit was sustained and dismissed the information. (at p356)

3. Subsequently, upon the request of the respondent for a certificate of dismissal which was assumed in the Supreme Court to have been a request for a certificate under s. 498 of the Crimes Act, 1900 (N.S.W.), a certificate of dismissal was signed by the magistrate and delivered to the respondent. That certificate, which has been produced to this Court, is on a printed form and follows precisely the terms of Form S in the Second Schedule to the Justices Act, 1902-1958 (N.S.W.), that form being the form prescribed in respect of a certificate of dismissal issued pursuant to s. 86 of the Justices Act. (at p356)

4. The appellant has commenced an action at law in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the respondent for damages for assault, being the same assault as that in respect of which the respondent had been tried and acquitted and in respect of which the magistrate dismissed the information. The respondent has pleaded in the action the existence of a certificate of dismissal under s. 498 of the Crimes Act. That section is in the following terms: "If, on the hearing of any case of assault under sections four hundred and ninety-three to four hundred and ninety-six both inclusive upon the merits, the Justices deem the offence not to be proved, or find the assault to have been justified, or so trifling as not to call for punishment, and accordingly dismiss the complaint, they shall forthwith make out a certificate of such dismissal, and deliver the same to the defendant." (at p356)

5. Section 499 (1) of the Crimes Act provides that "Any person who obtains a certificate of dismissal under section four hundred and ninety-eight, or, who having been convicted, pays the amount adjudged to be paid, or suffers the imprisonment awarded,…

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 Messina v Bridie

Details

AGLC: Messina v Bridie [1966] HCA 20
Case: [1966] HCA 20
Decision Date: 6 April 1966

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal in *Messina v Bridie*. The dispute concerned the proper interpretation of a clause within a contract for the sale of land, specifically relating to the payment of a deposit. The purchasers, Messina, sought to recover the deposit paid to the vendor, Bridie, on the grounds that the contract had been terminated due to the vendor's alleged breach.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the purchasers were entitled to the return of their deposit. This required the Court to determine whether the vendor had committed a breach of contract that entitled the purchasers to terminate the agreement and, consequently, to recover the deposit paid. The Court also had to consider the effect of the purchasers' own conduct in relation to the contract.

The Court analysed the terms of the contract and the conduct of the parties. It was held that the purchasers had not established a breach by the vendor that justified termination. Instead, the Court found that the purchasers themselves had repudiated the contract, thereby entitling the vendor to terminate. Consequently, the purchasers were not entitled to the return of their deposit. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders