Pritchard v Jeva Singh

The case of *Pritchard v Jeva Singh* concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The original dispute arose in a Court of Petty Sessions where the complainant, Arthur Horton Pritchard, sought to recover a sum of £9 from the defendant, Jeva Singh, for work and labour done. A summons was issued, and an affidavit of service was filed. At the hearing, the defendant's solicitor objected to the service and sought an adjournment, but the justices proceeded to hear the complaint and made an order in favour of the complainant.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Supreme Court of Victoria had correctly determined that the service of the summons was bad, that this defect deprived the Court of Petty Sessions of jurisdiction, and that an order to review was the appropriate remedy. The complainant argued that the affidavit of service constituted prima facie evidence of service, granting the justices jurisdiction, and that any issues with service should have been addressed through an application for a rehearing under section 89(4) of the *Justices Act 1890* (Vic.), rather than an order to review under section 141.

The High Court, in refusing special leave to appeal, indicated that regardless of whether the correct procedural avenue was an order to review or an application for a rehearing, the matter involved an irregularity of procedure. The Court suggested that it did not typically grant special leave to appeal to correct such procedural irregularities. Therefore, the application for special leave to appeal was refused.