Mitcham v O'Toole

[1977] HCA 41

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Stephen, Mason, Jacobs, Murphy and Aickin JJ.

MITCHAM v. O'TOOLE

(1977) 137 CLR 150

2 August 1977

Companies

Companies—Winding up—Public examination—Questions answers to &hich may tend to incriminate person being examined—Whether bound to answer—Companies Act 1961 (Vict.), ss. 278 (3), 367B.

Decision

August 2.
THE COURT delivered the following judgment: -
The Court has had an opportunity of considering this matter over the adjournment. Since this matter has been presented to the Court as one of urgency and since the Court has reached a conclusion on it, it appears desirable to express that conclusion forthwith. (at p152)

2. The Court is satisfied that there is nothing in s. 278 or s. 367B of the Companies Act 1961 (Vict.) which detracts from the right of a person under oath to decline to answer a question on the ground that it might incriminate him. (at p152)

3. Mortimer v. Brown (1970) 122 CLR 493 was decided on a different section of the Companies Act and the concatenation of features in the section there under consideration, s. 250, which led the Court to its conclusion in that case is not present in the sections now under consideration. The conclusion of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria was correct. The matter may, in the particular circumstances of this case, best be disposed of by refusing special leave to appeal. (at p152)

4. That will be the order of the Court: special leave is refused. (at p152)

Orders

Special leave refused.