Russell v Wilson [1923] HCA 60

Russell v Wilson [1923] HCA 60

(1) In the first case, the respondent was entitled to the return or value of money and securities seized by police under a gaming search warrant as no order for forfeiture was made, and the statutory limitation period had not expired because the refusal to return occurred within three months. Possessory title is sufficient to found an action for recovery against all but the true owner; the police's right expired with the conclusion of proceedings. (2) In the second case, the District Court was entitled to determine for itself whether the casualty (and resulting injury) was due to the master's negligence, irrespective of the Marine Inquiry's findings, and found, on the evidence, that the...

Parties
Appellant; Defendant: Russell; Respondent; Plaintiff: Wilson; Appellant; Plaintiff: Spain; Respondent; Defendant: Union Steamship Company of New Zealand Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 1923
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment From High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (first Case) and From a District Court of New South Wales (second Case)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Gaming and Betting, Seizure of Property, Detinue, Limitation Periods, Award Interpretation, Negligence, Marine Inquiry
Criminal Law Property Law Industrial Law Maritime Law Gaming and Betting Seizure of Property Detinue Limitation Periods +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Russell

Appellant; Defendant

Wilson

Respondent; Plaintiff

Spain

Appellant; Plaintiff

Union Steamship Company of New Zealand Limited

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment From High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (first Case) and From a District Court of New South Wales (second Case)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 1. Whether property (money and securities) seized by police under the Gaming and Betting Act 1912 (NSW) should be returned to the person convicted, absent any order for forfeiture.
  2. 2 2. Whether an action for detinue for the return of such property is barred by the statutory limitation period under the Act.
  3. 3 3. Whether expenses incurred by a ship's master in an inquiry due to alleged negligence are recoverable from the employer under an industrial award.

Ratio Decidendi

(1) In the first case, the respondent was entitled to the return or value of money and securities seized by police under a gaming search warrant as no order for forfeiture was made, and the statutory limitation period had not expired because the refusal to return occurred within three months. Possessory title is sufficient to found an action for recovery against all but the true owner; the police's right expired with the conclusion of proceedings. (2) In the second case, the District Court was entitled to determine for itself whether the casualty (and resulting injury) was due to the master's negligence, irrespective of the Marine Inquiry's findings, and found, on the evidence, that the...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • In Russell v Wilson: Appeal dismissed with costs; respondent entitled to return of goods or their value (£375 14s. 1d. plus one shilling for detention).
  • In Spain v Union Steamship: Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for the respondent; expenses not recoverable.