procedure to be adopted b y tlie plaintiff in order to maintain his U. C. of a .
claim, it is a matter in which we should give special leave to
appeal when the amount involved is le.ss than £30. On the whole,
B ag .vall
V.
having regard to the principle followed by this Court in Dalgarno
W h i t e .
v. Hannah (1) we have come to the conclusion that it would not be a proper thing for us to decide such a difficult matter in a case where so small an amount is involved as in this case. We think, therefore, that the proper order is to rescind the special leave.
Special leave rescinded. Appellant to pa.y
the costs of the appeal.
Solicitors, for the appellant, Logan c5 Carlton by Sly <L- Rmsell. Solicitors, for the respondent, Baker d- Mackenzie by Mackenzie
(t Mackenzie.
C. A. W.
OvTTDi*cd
Foil
Coni
Poll
CommonR vSnowTonttWis
\
Scania Bnavinf/on
<̂ ni
p L r.
v
wealth V
M agiin v
ImxrlsPiy
Federal
Oodieman
Brihane
s S '* "
§ S A
iwcOTii
Simpson
Capital^MihineCo
Commission
h/omi/
□928)41
Lid
CLRiw
WAf i - s s i ;
A) 159
[HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]
BAUME .
A p p e l l a n t ;
P l a in t if f ,
THE COMMONWEALTH
R espo n d en t .
D e fe n d a n t ,
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
II. C. OF A.
NEW SOUTH WALES.
1906.
Ac(»oii aijainn Commoiuve.a!th—Liability for tortious acts of servants—Independent
S yd :n e t ,
officer—Collector of Customs—Ministerial duty—y^ominal and small damages—
H. C. OF A. Practice— Verdict oj jury in Court exercUiny federal jurisdiction —Next} trial motion
1906. —Jurisdiction of Hiijh Court—Poiuer of Court to reduce damages-Amendment at trial—Judiciary Act (No. 6 o/"1903), secs. 2, 39.
B adme
V.Sec.s. 56 and 64 of the Judiciary Act1903 give a subject the same rights of action against the Commonwealth as he would have against a subject in matters of tort as well as contract. The Commonwealth is therefore respon sible in an action for the tortious acts of its servants in every case in which the gist of the cause of action is an infringement of a legal right, if the act complained of is not justified by law, and the person doing it is not exercising an independent discretion imposed upon him by Statute, but is performing a merely ministerial duty.
T h e Co m m on
w e a l t h .
The Collector of Customs, pending the passing of entries, took and detained certain imported goods liable to ad valorem duty for the…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Baume v Commonwealth
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Baume v Commonwealth [1906] HCA 92
Case
[1906] HCA 92
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The plaintiff, Baume, brought an action against the Commonwealth of Australia in the High Court of Australia, seeking damages for alleged tortious acts committed by the Collector of Customs. The dispute concerned the actions of the Collector in relation to the plaintiff's goods, which the plaintiff contended were unlawful and caused him loss.
The High Court was required to determine whether the Commonwealth was liable for the tortious acts of the Collector of Customs, particularly in light of the Collector's status as an independent officer performing ministerial duties. Further issues arose concerning the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain such an action, the power of the Court to reduce damages awarded by a jury, and the validity of amendments made to the pleadings during the trial.
The Court considered the provisions of the Customs Act and the Judiciary Act, focusing on sections relating to the liability of the Commonwealth for the acts of its officers and the jurisdiction of federal courts. The Chief Justice, Griffith C.J., and Justices Barton and O'Connor JJ. engaged in a detailed analysis of the nature of the Collector's office and the extent to which the Commonwealth could be held vicariously liable for his actions. The Court ultimately found that the Commonwealth was not liable for the specific tortious acts alleged, and that the damages awarded were nominal.