R v Dovey; ex parte Ross - [1979] HCA 14

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Barwick C.J., Gibbs and Mason JJ.

THE QUEEN v. DOVEY; Ex parte ROSS

(1979) 141 CLR 526

3 April 1979

Matrimonial Causes

Matrimonial Causes—Family Court of Australia—Powers—Injunction—Matrimonial home owned by family company and leased to husband and wife—Injunction to restrain husband as director and shareholder from exercising voting rights for sale of home—Whether matrimonial cause—Whether proceedings with respect to the maintenance of the wife—Whether proceedings for an injunction in circumstances arising out of the marital relationship—Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), ss. 4 (1) "matrimonial cause" (c), (e), 31 (1) (a), 114 (1), (3).

Decisions

April 3. The following written judgments were delivered:-
BARWICK C.J. In this application, I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Gibbs. I agree that the application for a writ of prohibition should be dismissed. (at p528)

2. In my opinion, the Family Court had jurisdiction to make the order the subject of these proceedings. Like my brother Gibbs, I say nothing as to whether or not it ought properly to have been made in point of discretion. (at p529)

3. The relevant jurisdiction of the Family Court was that given by a combination of the definition of "matrimonial cause" in s. 4 (c) and ss. 31 (1) (a) and 114 (3) of the Family Law Act, 1975 (Cth), for here there was an application for maintenance. The grant of an interlocutory injunction to maintain an existing situation pending the determination of the maintenance proceedings was clearly enough in aid of the jurisdiction to grant maintenance. (at p529)

4. If par. (e) of the definition of "matrimonial cause" in s. 4 is read so as to do no more than make an application for an injunction a matter of principal relief in situations in which some circumstance, otherwise attracting jurisdiction, is seen to exist, the Family Court's jurisdiction in relation to the present case might, in my opinion, be placed upon par. (e) of the definition. However, for my own part, I am content to find the jurisdiction in the instant case in par. (c) of the definition. I find no need to attempt an exposition of the nature and limits of the jurisdiction which par. (e) of the definition purports to give. Its language is lacking in precision and its ambit a matter of some doubt in my mind. (at p529)

5. Save for the comments I have made, I agree with the reasons my brother Gibbs gives for discharging the order nisi. The reasoning in Sanders v. Sanders (1967) 116 CLR 366 is sufficient, I think, to dispose of the argument that the order under attack goes beyond jurisdiction because of its indirect effects upon others than the husband. (at p529)

GIBBS J. This is an application for a writ of prohibition directed to a judge of the Family Court. (at p529)

2. The prosecutor and the second respondent are husband and wife. There are two children of the marriage, aged nine…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Dovey; ex parte Ross and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1979] HCA 14
Decision Date: 3 April 1979

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this matter were the Crown, represented by the Attorney-General for Queensland, and the respondent, Mr. Ross, who sought a writ of prohibition against the respondent, Mr. Dovey, a stipendiary magistrate. The dispute concerned the validity of a committal proceeding conducted by Mr. Dovey, which Mr. Ross contended was a nullity. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the committal proceeding, which had been conducted in the absence of the accused, Mr. Ross, constituted a nullity and therefore could be prohibited. This required the Court to consider the fundamental requirements of a committal hearing and the circumstances under which such a proceeding could be deemed invalid.

The Court reasoned that a committal proceeding is a judicial proceeding that must be conducted in accordance with the law. A fundamental aspect of natural justice is the right of an accused to be present at their trial or committal hearing. In this instance, the committal proceeding had been conducted without Mr. Ross's presence, and there was no evidence that he had waived his right to be present or had been given proper notice of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court held that the committal proceeding was a nullity, as it had been conducted in violation of basic legal principles.

The High Court made absolute the order nisi for a writ of prohibition, thereby quashing the committal proceeding.

Orders