James v Commonwealth [1939] HCA 9

James v Commonwealth [1939] HCA 9

The Commonwealth is liable for the wrongful acts of its officers carried out under de facto authority, even if under void legislation, but the plaintiff has no general cause of action for interference with business since s.92 gives no right to damages and no unlawful means or conspiracy was proved. For acts of conversion (seizure) of goods where the plaintiff retained property, he may recover; he failed where property had passed to the buyer before seizure.

Parties
Plaintiff: Frederick Alexander James; Defendant: The Commonwealth
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Civil Damages for Wrongful Interference and Conversion / Judgment at First Instance (dixon J., High Court of Australia)
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff in part
Legal Topics
Liability of the Commonwealth for Torts, Conversion, Inter State Trade, Invalid Legislation, Sale of Goods, Passing of Property, Procurement of Breach of Duty
Constitutional Law Tort Law Commercial Law Liability of the Commonwealth for Torts Conversion Inter State Trade Invalid Legislation Sale of Goods +2 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederick Alexander James

Plaintiff

The Commonwealth

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Damages for Wrongful Interference and Conversion / Judgment at First Instance (dixon J., High Court of Australia)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the Commonwealth liable in tort for acts of its servants acting under invalid legislation?
  2. 2 Does s.92 of the Constitution provide a statutory cause of action for damages?
  3. 3 When does property in goods pass under f.o.b. sales for the purpose of conversion claims?

Ratio Decidendi

The Commonwealth is liable for the wrongful acts of its officers carried out under de facto authority, even if under void legislation, but the plaintiff has no general cause of action for interference with business since s.92 gives no right to damages and no unlawful means or conspiracy was proved. For acts of conversion (seizure) of goods where the plaintiff retained property, he may recover; he failed where property had passed to the buyer before seizure.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff in part

Orders

  • Plaintiff may recover damages for conversion of goods seized on 10 October 1932 (£35 1s 7d), 9 December 1935 (£230 4s 1d), 6 April 1936 (£309 13s 3d), and 22 April 1936 (£303 6s 8d), total £878 5s 7d.
  • Plaintiff to have costs except those referable exclusively to unsuccessful parts of the claim, as described.