CROMPTON AND SON AND ANOTHER V. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND OTHERS 34/1921

&

CRUTTON AWD SO AND AWOTIR Vv.

SOMALI OF AUSTRALIA AND OTTERS

UDG:

SrTAmcy J.

This was a sumnons, issved by che defendants, sccking trike out

the plaintiffs' Ste

eut of Clad end te enter judgwent in the action.

for the de

ondants, oubstentially upon the greund that the Statesont of

Cc

digeloses no reasonable cause of section and is frivolous and

vexatious, The asplicents relied upon the inherent over of the Court

"to atay all proceedings before it which are obviously frivolous and

"vexatious or are an abuse of its process", r

r 30. Under its inheent jurisdiction, the Court may receive evidence

ather than upon Order XVII

by affidevit to show that a ple:ding is sn abuse of the process of the Court, whereas under the Rule "the nature of the »ction or the defect "in the plesding mst appear by the pleading snd no affidevit is per- uuniseibie". (Republic of Peru v. Peruvian ete Co 36 Ch D 439, Anal

© 1924 pp 414-417).

In this case, the res ective parties filed affidevits in support :

and in opposition to, the application, and soxe of the deponents were cross examined on behalf of the ,J-intiffs, The jurisdiction is clear .

enough, but this stwasry process will only be excrcised in obvious

cases - cases which have no solid basis and wust fail (Lawrance v. ra

Norreys 15 A.C, 210, Willis v

1 Nowe 1893 2 Ch 345, Electric Devel~

opment ste Co vs Attorney Genernl of Cunada 1919 A.C. 687) . The plain-

tiffs ellege thet in the year 1916 the Imperial Government arraenged with the Com-onwealth to obtein for it the whole of she wool clip for the season 1916-197 (with cortaim exceptions) on the toms that the In- perial Government paid 1544 per 1b. on the gressy basis plus a charge of id per 1b. to cover holding and handling charges till the wool wes placed f.oh, ship, that it was a term of the a-vrangewent that wool on sheepskins as well as skin wool and shorn wool should be obtaincd by