Patton v Buchanan Borehole Collieries Pty Limited

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant was Buchanan Borehole Collieries Pty Limited, and the respondent was Patton. The dispute arose from a previous trial that had aborted due to the expiry of the court's available time, leading to the discharge of the jury. The core of the disagreement concerned the proper procedure and legal basis for continuing the trial after the jury's discharge.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether, following the discharge of a jury in a trial that had commenced but not concluded, a judge could invoke powers akin to those under section 89 of the Supreme Court Act (or its state equivalents, such as section 79A of the District Court Act) to continue the proceedings as a trial before the judge alone. This raised the question of whether such a continuation would necessitate a completely new trial, including the re-calling of witnesses, unless the parties consented to the use of evidence from the aborted trial.

The Court considered the reasoning of Priestley J in the Court of Appeal, who had stated that exercising such a power after jury discharge would require a new trial to commence before the judge alone. This would involve starting over unless parties agreed to use the previous evidence without recalling witnesses. The applicant argued that this interpretation correctly reflected the law. The Court also noted that a previous case, *G & J Shopfittings*, which raised a similar point, had been settled, denying the High Court the opportunity to rule on the issue. Furthermore, the applicant's submission that the issue had general application across four Australian states was challenged, with a review of legislation suggesting it was primarily confined to specific jurisdictions.