Montgomery v Stewart [1967] HCA 11

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. Kitto, Taylor, Menzies and Windeyer JJ. Montgomery v Stewart [1967] HCA 11

ORDER Applications for special leave to appeal refused with costs.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

April 27 Barwick C.J.

Section 43 of the Companies Act 1958 Vict. provides "Where in a prospectus there is any untrue statement or wilful non-disclosure any person who authorized the issue of the prospectus shall be guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than twelve months or to a penalty of not more than Five hundred pounds or both unless he proves either that the statement or non-disclosure was immaterial or that he had reasonable ground to believe and did, up to the time of the issue of the prospectus, believe the statement was true or the non-disclosure immaterial: ".

The applicant for special leave was charged by information that at Melbourne on a specified date he had authorized the issue by Reid Murray Acceptance Limited of a prospectus which included untrue statements contrary to s. 43.

Under the heading "Particulars of Untrue Statements" there was listed a number of statements claimed to be untrue. The appellant took exception to the information on the ground that it charged more than one offence. Being unsuccessful before the Court of Petty Sessions in this submission, the appellant sought from the Supreme Court of Victoria both an order to review the decision of the Court of Petty Sessions and a writ of prohibition to restrain further proceedings upon the information on the footing that the Court of Petty Sessions lacked jurisdiction because of the duplicity of the information. The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria rejected both applications of the appellant and, in my opinion, rightly. Indeed, but for one or two matters raised in argument before this Court, I would be content to adopt the reasons expressed by the Chief Justice of Victoria for dismissing the appeal to that Court.