R v McNell [1922] HCA 33

R v McNell [1922] HCA 33

Fraudulent conduct by Crown servants does not extend the statutory twelve-month period for filing a petition under s 37 Crown Suits Act 1898 (WA); the time runs from when the claim arises, which is determined by the conclusion of respective 'campaigns' and account settlement. The limitation in s 37 is a strict condition to proceeding and cannot be displaced by equitable doctrines. Entitlements to payment and permissible deductions must follow the regulatory regime unless varied by consent.

Parties
Appellant: The Crown; Respondents: Neil McNeil and Claude de Bernales (trading as West Australian Gold and Copper Mines)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 1922
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Western Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Judgment of Burnside J. reversed regarding first five campaigns, affirmed for the sixth to ninth campaigns. Account to be taken for later campaigns; cost orders varied.
Legal Topics
Limitation Periods, Crown Liability, Statutory Interpretation, Breach of Contract, Fraud and Limitation Periods
Administrative Law Contract Law Limitation Periods Crown Liability Statutory Interpretation Breach of Contract Fraud and Limitation Periods

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 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Appellant

Neil McNeil and Claude de Bernales (trading as West Australian Gold and Copper Mines)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court of Australia on Appeal From the Supreme Court of Western Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does fraudulent concealment by servants of the Crown extend the twelve-month period for filing a petition under s 37 Crown Suits Act 1898 (WA)?
  2. 2 How should charges under the relevant smelting regulations be interpreted—do fixed or actual costs apply?
  3. 3 At what point does a claim or demand under the Crown Suits Act 1898 (WA) arise for the purposes of s 37?

Ratio Decidendi

Fraudulent conduct by Crown servants does not extend the statutory twelve-month period for filing a petition under s 37 Crown Suits Act 1898 (WA); the time runs from when the claim arises, which is determined by the conclusion of respective 'campaigns' and account settlement. The limitation in s 37 is a strict condition to proceeding and cannot be displaced by equitable doctrines. Entitlements to payment and permissible deductions must follow the regulatory regime unless varied by consent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Judgment of Burnside J. reversed regarding first five campaigns, affirmed for the sixth to ninth campaigns. Account to be taken for later campaigns; cost orders varied.

Orders

  • An account to be taken by the Master regarding lots of ore delivered and treated in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth campaigns, as well as realisations, deductions, charges, and expenses in those campaigns.
  • Account to be on the footing of the Regulations made 30th June 1915.