Read the full judgment text of CACV 000137/1982 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 February 1983 before Cons, JA, Fuad, JA, Power, J.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal to Privy Council – Order in Council 10th August 1909, Rule 2 – discretionary leave where question is of great general or public importance – leave as of right where matter in dispute involves civil right of specified value – jockey's licence refused by Licensing Committee and on appeal to Stewards – applicant brought Originating Summons in High Court seeking declaration that decision was void, order renewing licence, and enquiry into damages – High Court (Mayo J.) refused all relief – Court of Appeal upheld dismissal – application for leave to appeal to Privy Council – contentions that reasons of Stewards were inadequate, that there was no evidence to support their decision, and that Stewards misled applicant's advisers into not calling evidence – whether questions of great general or public importance – whether appeal involves claim in contract for damages exceeding financial limit – whether appeal involves civil right to work as jockey worth more than financial limit – held (discretionary leave): questions not of great general or public importance, personal or public interest in subject matter insufficient – held (contract claim): not pleaded in Originating Summons or Notice of Appeal, cannot be introduced as new cause of action at this stage, beyond jurisdiction – held (civil right): majority (Cons JA and Power J) distinguished Graham v. Callaghan and Griffin & Sons, holding that the only reason for refusal was that applicant lacked ability at the start so that success on natural justice would inevitably lead to grant of licence, placing case within Nagle v. Feilden; in dissent Fuad JA followed Cole v. Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand authorities, holding that the only civil right in issue was the right to a fair hearing, which could not be reduced to money value – leave granted by majority, subject to conditions as to security and preparation of the Record.
Legal issues: Discretionary leave to Privy Council on ground of great general or public importance · Leave as of right based on contract claim exceeding financial limit · Leave as of right based on civil right to work as a jockey
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Privy Council granted to the applicant by majority (Cons JA and Power J); Fuad JA dissenting.