Commonwealth of Australia v John Griffith Cornwell

The Commonwealth of Australia appealed to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory from a decision of Higgins CJ, who found the Commonwealth liable for economic loss suffered by the respondent, John Griffith Cornwell, due to negligent misstatement. The respondent's claim arose from advice allegedly provided in 1965 by a Commonwealth officer regarding his eligibility to join the Commonwealth Superannuation Fund. The primary judge ordered judgment for the respondent, with damages to be assessed, and the Commonwealth sought leave to appeal this interlocutory decision, which was granted.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the respondent's cause of action for negligent misstatement accrued at the time of the alleged misstatement in 1965, or upon his retirement in 1994, which would determine if the action was statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1985 (ACT). Additionally, the Court considered whether the trial judge's findings of fact regarding the alleged misstatement and its negligent nature were sufficiently supported by the evidence.

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the cause of action did not accrue until the respondent suffered actual damage. Applying the principle established in cases such as *Wardley Australia Limited v The State of Western Australia*, the Court reasoned that economic loss in this context was contingent on future events, specifically the respondent's retirement, and could not be quantified or ascertained until that point. Therefore, the six-year limitation period under the *Limitation Act* did not commence until the respondent's retirement in December 1994, making the action commenced in November 1999 within time. The Court also found no error in the trial judge's factual findings concerning the negligent misstatement, noting that the evidence, including a contemporary note on a desk calendar, supported the respondent's account.