Zimpel v Allard

The High Court of Australia considered an application for special leave to appeal in *Zimpel v Allard*. The dispute concerned a claim for a relatively small sum of money, and the central issue on appeal was whether the jurisdiction of an inferior court had been properly exercised.

The primary legal question before the High Court was whether a party who had not raised an objection to the jurisdiction of an inferior court during proceedings in that court could subsequently rely on such an objection to challenge the court's decision on appeal. The Court also had to consider the implications of the "smallness of the amount" in dispute for the granting of special leave to appeal.

The Court held that a party who participates in proceedings before an inferior court without objecting to its jurisdiction is generally taken to have waived any such objection. This principle of "lying-by" prevents parties from standing by and allowing proceedings to continue, only to later challenge the court's authority. The Court indicated that special leave to appeal would not ordinarily be granted in cases involving small sums where no substantial question of law or public importance arises, particularly when the alleged jurisdictional defect could have been cured at first instance.

Special leave to appeal was refused.