McClintock v The Commonwealth

William Arthur McClintock appealed to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute concerned the validity of various National Security Regulations and orders made thereunder, which compelled pineapple growers, including the appellant, to deliver a prescribed percentage of their crops to a committee acting as agent for a Commonwealth department. The appellant sought declarations that these orders were invalid for failing to provide "just terms" for the acquisition of property, damages for conversion, and compensation for goods requisitioned.

The High Court was required to determine whether the orders constituted laws for the acquisition of property under section 51(xxxi) of the Constitution, and if so, whether they provided "just terms" for such acquisition. Further issues included whether the appellant's deliveries of pineapples were voluntary or made under compulsion, and whether he had a valid claim for damages for conversion or compensation for requisitioned goods, particularly in light of payments received and the absence of protest. The Court also considered the scope of section 51(xxxi) and whether it applied to acquisitions by entities other than the Commonwealth itself.

A majority of the High Court (Latham C.J., Starke and McTiernan JJ.) dismissed the appeal. Latham C.J. and McTiernan JJ. reasoned that if the orders were valid, the appellant had been paid correctly, and if they were invalid, he had voluntarily delivered the pineapples under a mistake of law, thus precluding a claim for damages or compensation. Starke J. found the relevant orders to be valid, holding that they did provide "just terms" and that the prices fixed were lawful. Rich and Williams JJ. dissented.

The appeal was dismissed. The majority found that the appellant had either been paid in accordance with valid orders or had voluntarily acted under a mistake of law when delivering his pineapples pursuant to invalid orders, thereby forfeiting any claim for damages or compensation. Regarding claims under the Food Control Regulations, the appellant was found to have accepted payment in full satisfaction, precluding an action for compensation due to the absence of disagreement on the amount.