Neville Jordan v ACN 081 472 102 Pty Ltd & Anor

Neville Jordan was the applicant in a case against ACN 081 472 102 Pty Ltd and another respondent. The dispute arose from an attempt to recover moneys for two orders of wooden frames. Jordan argued that the frames were not fit for purpose and not of merchantable quality. The respondents argued that the frames were made to specifications and computer drawings provided by Jordan, and that no complaints were made during the staggered delivery of the frames. The case was initially heard by a magistrate, who found in favour of the respondents. Jordan then appealed to the Supreme Court, but the trial judge upheld the magistrate's decision. Jordan then sought special leave to appeal to the High Court, but the Full Court of the Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The legal issues in this case were whether the frames were of merchantable quality and fit for purpose, and whether there was any error in the decisions of the magistrate and the trial judge. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the findings of the magistrate and trial judge were correct. The court also had to consider whether there was any arguable question of law or miscarriage of justice that warranted the attention of the High Court.

The High Court reviewed the record carefully, but ultimately dismissed the application for special leave. The court found that the application was prolix and devoted to unparticularised assertions of failure of the judicial process and factual assertions. The court was not convinced that the applicant had demonstrated the existence of reasonable prospects of success, were special leave granted. The court also took into account the very small amount at stake and the competing priorities of other claims to a hearing in this, the nation's final court.

Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed. The Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application in accordance with Rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules.