High Court of Australia
212 HIGH COURT [1955-15
[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]
THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA + es APPELLANT;
AND
THE MOOR LINE LIMITED (No. 2].
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.
H.C.or A. Arbitration—Special case stated by arbitrator for opinion of Supreme Court—Co
1955-1958. Jurisdiction of Supreme Court to award—Arbitration Act 1928 (Vict.) No. 363 . 8. 19. Metnourye,
Since an opinion of the Supreme Court on a case stated by an arbitr
1955, coe al :
Mar. 16; under s. 19 of the Arbitration Act 1928 (Vict.) is advisory, no appeal lies from ae it. Further, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to make an order as 1958, the costs of such a case stated.
May 15. : fd In Re Arbitration between Groutch and the State Rivers and Water Supply
"ie Commission (1913) V.L.R. 455, approved.
Follagar and Decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (O'Bryan J.), varied.
Taylor JJ.
Appr from the Supreme Court of Victoria.
A dispute having arisen between the President of India, charterer of the M.V. Exmoor and the owner of the vessel, the Moot Line Limited, the same was referred to the arbitration of Jame! Stratton Cameron as umpire.
On 23rd March 1954 the umpire stated a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court of Victoria upon certain questions arising the arbitration.
The case was heard before O'Bryan J., who, in a judgm delivered on 4th June 1954, answered the questions in favour the President of India and awarded the costs of the proceedings t
him.
99 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.
From this decision the Moor Line appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria, constituted by Herring O.J., Barry and Dean JJ. On 28th September 1954 the Full Court allowed the appeal and awarded the costs of the proceedings, both before it and before O'Bryan J. to the Moor Line Ltd.
From this decision, pursuant to special leave granted by the High Court on 12th October 1954, the President of India appealed to the High Court. When the appeal came on for hearing on 15th March 1955 the High Court indicated that the Full Court of the Supreme Court had had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal from the decision of O'Bryan J., and the proceedings were accord- ingly adjourned and the costs reversed.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate