Miller v Haweis - [1907] HCA 44

5 CLR 89

RESPONDENT. COMPLAINANT,

ON APPEAL FROM A COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS OF VICTORIA Appeal to High Court from State Court of Summary Jurindiction-Court exercising

federal jurisdiction-Decision of two questions either of which supports judg- ment-The Constitution (63 &64 Vict. c. 12), sec. -Judiciary Act 1903 (No. 6 of 1903), sec. 39 (2) (d)--Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890 (Vict.) (No. MELBOURNE, 1075), sec. 282-Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 (No. 19 of 1902).

A Court of Summary Jurisdiction of a State exercises federal jurisdiction within the meaning of sec. 32 (2) (d) of the Judiciary Act 1903, if it be neces- sary in the particular case for the Court to decide any question arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation.

If, however, whether that question is answered rightly or wrongly, the Court answers another question, not arising under the Constitution or involv- ing its interpretation, and their answer to that other question enables them to decide the case, the Court does not exercise federal jurisdiction, and there- fore no appeal lies to the High Court from that decision,

On a complaint in a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria for work and labour done concerning an election for the House of Representatives for the Com- monwealth Parliament, the defence being that sec. 282 of the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890 (Vict.) was a bar to the complaint, the Court held that that section was a "law relating to elections," and was consequently by sec. 31 of the Constitution adopted and applied to elections for the House of Repre- sentatives, and also held that, being so adopted and applied, it was repealed by the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902, and therefore gave judgment for the complainant.

5 CLR 90

Held, that in determining the second point the Court of Petty Sessions had not exercised federal jurisdiction, and therefore that no appeal lay to the High Court from their decision.

APPEAL from a Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria.

Thomas W. Haweis brought a complaint in the Court of Petty Sessions at Prahran against John Miller, who was a candidate for the Fawkner Electoral Division, at the election held on the 12th December 1906, for the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth Parliament. Haweis claimed £15 for work and labour done in issuing and distributing circulars in connection with Miller's candidature. The case was heard on 2nd May 1907, the Court of Petty Sessions being constituted by Mr. Keogh, Police Magistrate, and two honorary Justices of the Peace, and an order was made for the amount claimed.

An order nisi to review this decision was granted by Barton J., on the grounds

1. That the complaint was not maintainable having regard to sec. 31 of the Constitution and sec. 282 of the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890 (Vict.).

2. That the jurisdiction exercised by the Court of Petty Sessions, being federal jurisdiction, was exercised in a manner contrary to the provisions of sec. 39 (2) (d) of the Judiciary Act 1903.

The order…

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 Miller v Haweis

Details

AGLC: Miller v Haweis [1907] HCA 44
Case: [1907] HCA 44
Decision Date: 19 September 1907

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Court of Petty Sessions of Victoria. The complainant, Thomas W. Haweis, sought to recover £15 for work and labour done for the appellant, John Miller, who was a candidate in an election for the House of Representatives. The defence raised was that section 282 of the Constitution Act Amendment Act 1890 (Vict.) barred the complaint, and that the Court of Petty Sessions, if exercising federal jurisdiction, was improperly constituted.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Court of Petty Sessions had exercised federal jurisdiction, and if so, whether it had been properly constituted. Specifically, the Court had to determine if it was necessary for the Court of Petty Sessions to decide a question arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation to reach its decision. The appellant argued that the interpretation of section 31 of the Commonwealth Constitution was necessary, thus invoking federal jurisdiction and requiring a specific court composition.

The High Court held that while the Court of Petty Sessions was required to consider whether section 282 of the Victorian Act was a "law relating to elections" within the meaning of section 31 of the Constitution, this question, even if answered, was not determinative of the case. The Court also considered whether the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902 had repealed section 282. The High Court found that the determination of the latter question, concerning the interpretation and effect of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1902, did not involve the interpretation of the Constitution. Therefore, the Court of Petty Sessions, in deciding this issue, was not exercising federal jurisdiction.

Consequently, the High Court concluded that no appeal lay to it from the decision of the Court of Petty Sessions, as it had not exercised federal jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders