Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Aust) Ltd v The Commonwealth [1991] HCA 43

High Court of Australia Mason C.J. Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ. Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Aust) Ltd v The Commonwealth [1991] HCA 43

ORDER Smith Kline & French Laboratories (Australia) Ltd v The Commonwealth Answer the questions reserved for the consideration of the Full Court as follows: Question 1: Whether s. 33(3) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 Cth is invalid. Answer: No. Question 2: If the answer to Question 1 is No, whether the High Court in exercising its discretion to grant special leave pursuant to s. 33(3) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 Cth must be constituted by the Chief Justice and the six Justices of the Court. Answer: No. Order that the plaintiffs pay the costs of the questions reserved. Demurrer of the third defendant allowed. Order that the plaintiffs pay the costs of the demurrer. Action dismissed with costs. Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) Demurrer allowed. Action dismissed. Order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the demurrer and of the action. Objection to competency upheld. Appeal dismissed as incompetent. Order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the objection to competency and of the appeal. Carson v Slee Demurrer allowed. Action dismissed. Order that the plaintiff pay the defendants' costs of the demurrer and of the action. Objection to competency upheld. Appeal dismissed as incompetent. Order that the appellant pay the respondents' costs of the objection to competency and of the appeal.

The Court published the following written reasons for judgment:—

Nov. 14 Mason C.J., Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ.

These three matters were heard together because they involved a challenge to the validity of statutory provisions requiring that no appeal shall be brought to this Court from a judgment of the Full Court of the Federal Court or a judgment of the Supreme Court of a State unless this Court grants special leave to appeal [1] . At the conclusion of argument the Chief Justice stated: