//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1915] HCA 7
High Court of Australia
1915-07-01
Rich J, Gavan Duffy JJ, Ricu J, Isaacs J, Beckett J
Original judgment source is linked above.
pay to the representatives, and the representatives are to receive from the trustees.
Ricu J. I agree. I can find no indication in the whole context of the will that the testator's intention was to use the word "representatives" in any other than its ordinary sense.
Appeal dismissed with costs. The difference between party and party costs and solicitor and client costs to be retained out of the shares of the daughters other than Lucy Throsby Manning.
Solicitor, for the appellant, F. C. Petrie. Solicitors, for the respondents, Wilkinson & Osborne.
BL {HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] FISK . : i 3 ' 5 é APPLICANT 3 PLAINTIFF, AND ANDERSON AND OTHERS . : : . RESPONDENTS. DEFENDANTS,
Practice - Appeal to High Court - A ppeal in forma pauperis - A ppeal not instituted
On an application to reduce the amount of or to dispense with the security
for the costs of an appeal to the High Court from the Supreme Court of a
State, where a similar application has already been refused, the matter is res judicata.
'The High Court has no jurisdiction to allow an appeal to be prosecuted in H.C, or A.
forma pauperis where the appeal has not been duly instituted. 1915.
'An action was brought in the Supreme Court by Robert Wilson Fisk against Thomas Anderson, Herbert Dawson Smith, James Lennox, William Jardine and the Registrar of Titles, sub- stantially to set aside a sale under a mortgage by the plaintiff to the defendant Anderson. The action was heard by «Beckett J; who gave judgment for the defendants on 20th February 1914. The plaintiff gave notice of appeal to the High Court from that decision on 12th March 1914. On 13th May 1914 an applica- tion by the plaintiff to dispense with or reduce the security for the costs of the appeal was refused by Powers J. The plaintiff on 19th May 1914 took out a summons for 20th May 1914 asking that he should be at liberty to prosecute the appeal in formé pauperis and also that the security for the costs of the appeal should be reduced or dispensed with notwithstanding the previous order of Powers J. The summons came on for hearing on 23rd July 1914 before Zsaacs J., who referred it to the Full Court of the High Court.
H. Barrett, for the applicant, referred to Delph Singh v. Karbowsky (1).
GrirritH C.J. The present application is in form an appli- cation for leave to prosecute an appeal in formd pawperis and also - not in the alternative - to reduce the amount of or dispense with the security. The time for giving security has long since expired. Before the time expired an application was made to Powers J. to reduce the amount of or dispense with the security. That application was refused. No appeal was brought from his decision, and the time for appealing from it has now expired. Then the present summons was taken out. So far as the appli- cation to reduce or dispense with the security is concerned it is
H.C. or A. res judicata by reason of the decision of Powers J. The only 1915. thing left is an application for leave to prosecute an appeal in ae formé pauperis. But the security not having been given in
Awpeasox, ue time, the appeal has not been instituted and there is no
matter before the Court in which an order can be made. We
We allowed Mr. Barrett to state the facts upon which he relies to show that in some form or other he would be entitled to relief on the appeal if there were no technical difficulty in his way, but he has failed to show a case for granting special leave to appeal.
Barton J. I concur. Isaacs J. I concur. Gavan Durry J. I concur.
Solicitor, for the applicant, W. H. Jones. Solicitors, for the respondents, Dugdale & Oreber.
MocattTa
Mocarra.