President of India v Moor Line Ltd (No 2) - [1958] HCA 25

THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA

THE MOOR LINE LIMITED

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Arbitration-Special case stated by arbitrator for opinion of Supreme Court-Costs- 1955-1958.

Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to award-Arbitration Act 1928 (Vict.) No. 3637, MELBOURNE,

Since an opinion of the Supreme Court on a case stated by an arbitrator 1955,

under S. 19 of the Arbitration Act 1928 (Vict.) is advisory, no appeal lies from Mar. 15;

it. Further, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to make an order as to 1958,

the costs of such a case stated. May 15.

In Re Arbitration between Groutch and the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission (1913) V.L.R. 455, approved.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (O'Bryan J.), varied.

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Victoria.

A dispute having arisen between the President of India, as charterer of the M.V. Exmoor and the owner of the vessel, the Moor Line Limited, the same was referred to the arbitration of James Stratton Cameron as umpire.

On 23rd March 1954 the umpire stated a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Victoria upon certain questions arising in the arbitration.

The case was heard before O'Bryan J., who, in a judgment delivered on 4th June 1954, answered the questions in favour of the President of India and awarded the costs of the proceedings to him.

99 CLR 213

From this decision the Moor Line appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, constituted by Herring C.J., Barry and Dean JJ. On 28th September 1954 the Full Court allowed the appeal and awarded the costs of the proceedings, both before it and before O'Bryan J. to the Moor Line Ltd.

From this decision, pursuant to special leave granted by the High Court on 12th October 1954, the President of India appealed to the High Court. When the appeal came on for hearing on 15th March 1955 the High Court indicated that the Full Court of the Supreme Court had had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from the decision of O'Bryan J., and the proceedings were accord- ingly adjourned and the costs reversed.

D. I. Menzies Q.C. and K. A. Aickin, for the appellant. Dr. E. G. Coppel Q.C. and R. K. Fullagar, for the respondent. The Court delivered the following written judgment In this litigation the substance of which we have decided in the judgments just delivered there were proceedings which reached this Court of the costs of which it is necessary to dispose. The umpire stated a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court. Under the law of Victoria such an opinion is of an advisory nature: see In re C.T. Arbitration between Knight and Tabernacle Permanent Building Society 1 Cogstad &Co. v. H. Newsum, Sons &Co. Ltd. 2. The case stated came before O'Bryan J. whose opinion was against the shipowners. The shipowners appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria. As the opinion was advisory…

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 President of India v Moor Line Ltd (No 2)

Details

AGLC: President of India v Moor Line Ltd (No 2) [1958] HCA 25
Case: [1958] HCA 25
Decision Date: 15 May 1958

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute originated from an arbitration between the President of India, as charterer of the M.V. Exmoor, and the vessel's owner, the Moor Line Limited. An umpire had stated a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Victoria under section 19 of the *Arbitration Act 1928* (Vic.).

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Supreme Court of Victoria had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an opinion given on a case stated by an arbitrator, and whether it had jurisdiction to make orders as to the costs of such proceedings. The High Court also considered the appropriate orders to make in light of its determination on jurisdiction.

The High Court reasoned that an opinion of the Supreme Court on a case stated under section 19 of the *Arbitration Act 1928* (Vic.) is advisory in nature. Consequently, no appeal lies from such an opinion. The Court further held that, following the precedent set in *In re Arbitration between Groutch and the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission*, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to make an order as to the costs of a case stated. Although the Full Court of the Supreme Court had entertained an appeal and made orders as to costs, this was done without jurisdiction, as the point had not been taken in that court.

The High Court allowed the appeal from the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, discharged the order of that court, and set aside so much of the order of O'Bryan J. as awarded costs to the President of India. The Court held that it had no jurisdiction over the advisory part of O'Bryan J.'s order, which therefore remained untouched. No order was made as to costs in the High Court or in the Supreme Court.

Orders