Whitfeld v De Lauret and Company Limited [1920] HCA 75

Whitfeld v De Lauret and Company Limited [1920] HCA 75

The Government of New South Wales was not liable for the shipping companies' refusal to carry wheat, as it was caused by the refusal of the Collector of Customs, a Commonwealth officer, to grant permits. Damages should be compensatory rather than 'at large' or exemplary, absent evidence of contumelious conduct. Evidence as to what might have happened had the wheat pool not been established was admissible to support a reasonable cause or excuse. The Attorney-General's consent extended to all causes of action sued on.

Parties
Appellant: Whitfeld; Respondent: De Lauret and Company Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 1920
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Judgment by Full High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order below varied
Legal Topics
Interference With Contract, Damages, Government Schemes, War Precautions (supplementary) Regulations
Tort Law Government Regulation War Time Regulation Interference With Contract Damages Government Schemes War Precautions (supplementary) Regulations

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Whitfeld

Appellant

De Lauret and Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Judgment by Full High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the Government of New South Wales liable for interference with contractual relations relating to wheat sales during the 1915-1916 wheat pool scheme?
  2. 2 Were the plaintiff's damages to be assessed as 'damages at large'?
  3. 3 Was the State Government liable for refusal of shipment permits by the Collector of Customs?

Ratio Decidendi

The Government of New South Wales was not liable for the shipping companies' refusal to carry wheat, as it was caused by the refusal of the Collector of Customs, a Commonwealth officer, to grant permits. Damages should be compensatory rather than 'at large' or exemplary, absent evidence of contumelious conduct. Evidence as to what might have happened had the wheat pool not been established was admissible to support a reasonable cause or excuse. The Attorney-General's consent extended to all causes of action sued on.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; order below varied

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the defendant on the fourth count of the declaration
  • Order of the Supreme Court otherwise affirmed as to new trial on other counts