Griffin v South Australia [1924] HCA 40

'Cons | Foll British vv American

pues

2003) 53 TR 098

200 HIGH COURT

|HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

GRIFFIN é 5 . t 3 e rf . Prat'

AGAINST

THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA . . Derenpan

H.C. or A. Practice—High Court—Discovery and interrogatories—Action by resident of 1924. 'State against another State—Right to compel State to give discovery and a = interrogatories —The Constitution (63 & 64 Vict. c. 12), secs. 51 (XXX1X.), 75 (1

ADELAIDE, 76, 78—Judiciary Act 1903-1920 (No. 6 of 1903-—No. 38 of 1920), sec. 64.

Sept. 18, 19. Held, that in an action in the High Court by a resident of one State Mxrnovens another State, sec. 64 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1920 gives the plaintiff th ont right to obtain discovery of documents from, and to administer interrogatori — to, the defendant, and that sec. 64, in so far as it gives that right is wi Isaacs A.C.J.. the legislative power of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Gavan Dufly and Starke JJ.

The Commonwealth v. Miller, (1910) 10 C.L.R. 742, and Jamieson v. Dow (1923) A.C. 691, followed.

Question REsERVED.

An action was brought in the High Court by Hurtle Griffin, resident of the State of Victoria, against the State of South Australia by which the plaintiff sought to recover damages for negligence handling, storing and selling wheat which the plaintiff and of persons delivered to the Government of the defendant State p to the Wheat Harvest Acts 1915 and 1916 (S.A.). An appl was made by the plaintiff on summons to a Judge of the Supre Court of South Australia, pursuant to sec. 17 of the Judiciary 4 for an order for discovery of documents and for leave to plaintiff to administer interrogatories. The summons came for hearing before Poole J., who, pursuant to sec. 18 of Judiciary Act, reserved for the consideration of the Full Court

35 O.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

the High Court, the question whether he had, upon the application, power either to order discovery of documents or to give leave to