Blom v Commonwealth

The case of *Blom v Commonwealth* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Axel E. Blom, the owner of a Russian-registered ship, sought damages against the Commonwealth. The dispute arose when the Collector of Customs at Sydney, and subsequently the Comptroller-General of Customs, refused to grant the ship a clearance to depart Australia unless it accepted a cargo of wheat for the United Kingdom or France. The Commonwealth had assumed control over the export of wheat to these destinations.

The legal issues before the High Court were twofold: first, whether the owner was entitled to damages for the refusal to grant a clearance, and second, whether the owner was entitled to damages for the Commonwealth placing an armed guard on the ship to prevent it from sailing without clearance. The parties had presented a special case to the Supreme Court, which had made certain determinations, leading to this appeal.

A majority of the High Court, comprising Barton, Isaacs, and Rich JJ., held that the owner was entitled to maintain an action for damages against the Commonwealth regarding the refusal to grant a clearance, following the precedent set in *Zachariassen v. The Commonwealth*. However, with respect to the second issue concerning the armed guard, the Court, including Gavan Duffy J., determined that the question could not be answered on the basis of the special case alone. The Court reasoned that the circumstances under which the armed guard was placed on the ship, particularly in the context of wartime, required further evidence to ascertain its legality and justification. Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court on the first question and declined to answer the second question, leaving it for trial.