Licul v Corney [1976] HCA 6

High Court of Australia Barwick C.J. Gibbs, Stephen, Mason and Jacobs JJ. Licul v Corney [1976] HCA 6

ORDER Objection to competency allowed. Appeal dismissed with costs as incompetent. Applications for special leave or leave to appeal refused.

Cur. adv. vult.

The following written judgments were delivered:—

1976, March 3 Barwick C.J.

One of the three appellants, Rita Licul, has lodged an appeal to this Court as of right against an order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria which allowed an appeal brought by the respondent against an order made by the County Court of that State.

The respondent has objected to the competency of this appeal and all three appellants, Rita Licul and her two children Oriana and Elio, in the event of the success of that objection, have notified their intention to apply for leave or special leave. The basic ground of the objection to competency is that the order of the Full Court was not a final order. It is submitted that it did not of its own force terminate the action between the parties.

A brief recital of a series of events is necessary to appreciate the matter in contest between the parties.

On 26 July 1972, the appellants commenced proceedings in the County Court at Melbourne against the respondent for damages, for personal injuries which they had suffered. As appears in the papers before this Court, the appellants were passengers in a car driven by Ratko Licul which was involved in a road accident allegedly caused by the negligence of the respondent. The initiating summonses were for service in Victoria but on 2 February 1973, the original summonses not having been served, the appellants obtained from the County Court concurrent summonses. It was said that the appellants had experienced difficulty in attempting to serve the original processes on the respondent but no details of their endeavours to do so are in evidence.