Westcott v Westcott [1918] HCA 76

OF AUSTRALIA. 495

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.}

ESTCOTT . G é 2 2 5 3 . APPELLANT; Petitioner, : AND Me RespoNDENT.

RespoNnDENT,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

clice—High Court—Appeal from Supreme Court of a State—Special leave— yx ©. ov a Appeal as of right—Failure to lodge security within prescribed time—Special

1918. - cireumstances—Rules of the High Court 1911, Part IT., Sec. III., r. 12. The fact that a person who had a right to appeal from a decision of the aa, 0. 5.

Supreme Court of a State to the High Court and had given notice of such appeal was unable, through poverty, to provide the funds necessary for an Griftith C.J., " application to reduce or dispense with security for the costs of the appeal until 4, Par?"

'it was practically too late to make such an application before the time for "4 Rich JJ. giving such security had elapsed is not, by itself, a special circumstance which

will justify the granting of special leave to appeal.

Special leave to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Gordon J.) refused.

IcaTION for special leave to appeal. i a petition brought by Hilda Cornwallis Westcott against

z z g = x =RD =8fo) cy2 azg &

in its matrimonial causes jurisdiction for dissolution of ge on the ground of desertion, Gordon J. dismissed the on on the ground that desertion had not been proved. Notice :

al to the High Court from that decision was filed by the

H.C. oF A 1918.

——

Westcorr

v.

Westrcorr.

HIGH COURT

+ petitioner on 4th July 1918, and was served on that day, but ni security was given as prescribed by rule 12 of Section IIL. of Part Il of the Rules of the High Court 1911.

The petitioner now applied for special leave to appeal to High Court from the decision of the Supreme Court. In support of the application an affidavit was filed which stated that the applicant had been prevented by her poverty from providing the funds ne : sary for the purpose of applying to the High Court to reduce o dispense with security for costs in the proposed appeal until the prescribed time for giving security had almost elapsed, that the affidavit proposed to be used in support of such application to reduce or dispense with security only reached the applicant's solicito in Sydney on 4th October, and that the delay was due to the want of funds referred to.