Zimpel v Allard [1904] HCA 56

2 CLR] OF AUSTRALIA. WW

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

ZIMPEL .. 3 ' : : : : . APPELLANT; DEFENDANT, AND ALLARD: . : : : : ; . RESPONDENT. PLAINTIFF,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

Practice—Special leave to appeal—Jurisdiction of inferior Court —Objection not H.C. of A. taken in that Court—Lying-by—Smallness of amount. 1904.

{nan action of ejectment in the Local Court the respondent obtained an order aaa under the Small Debts Act of Western Australia (27 Vict., No. 21), for PERTH, recovery of possession of certain premises of the annual value of not more than Oct. 11,,18. £20. The appellant made no objection to the jurisdiction of the Court. The stop time for issuing execution was allowed to expire. Afterwards the respondent gue ale brought an action in the Supreme Court founded on the judgment of the Loca] Connor JJ. Court. The Chief Justice at Nisi Prius he/d that the judgment of the Local Court was conclusive, and rejected evidence tendered by the appellant to show that the case was not within its jurisdiction. The Supreme Court of Western Australia affirmed his decision. On an application for special leave to appeal

from the judgment of the Supreme Court :—

Held, that, even if the Supreme Court was «in error in holding that the judgment of an inferior Court could not be disputed unless it had been disputed in the Local Court itself, the discretion of this Court to grant special leave to appeal should not be exercised where so small an amount was involved, and

when the appellant had lain by in the Local Court and taken the chance of a judgment in his favour.

Rule in Mayor of London v. Cox (1), applied.

HIS was an application for special leave to appeal from a udgment of the Supreme Court of Western Australia of the 9th August, 1904, affirming the judgment of the Chief Justice at \isi Prius in an ejectment action, ordering possession to be given