R v Dalgety and Company Limited Suppliant

This case concerned an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia to the High Court of Australia. The suppliant, Dalgety & Company Limited, had presented a petition of right to His Majesty the King, alleging that the Government of Western Australia had received money for the suppliant's use through the wrongful dealing with crossed cheques marked "not negotiable". The Crown demurred to the petition, arguing that a common law petition of right was no longer available in Western Australia and that any claims against the Crown must be brought in accordance with the *Crown Suits Act 1898* (W.A.).

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the suppliant had the right to proceed by way of a common law petition of right, or if its claim was exclusively governed by the *Crown Suits Act 1898* (W.A.). This involved determining whether earlier Western Australian legislation, specifically an Ordinance passed in 1867, and the subsequent *Crown Suits Act 1898*, had abolished the common law right to petition the Crown. The Court also considered whether the specific claim for money had and received, arising from the handling of "not negotiable" cheques, constituted a cause of action cognisable by a common law petition of right, particularly given that the claim did not fall within the specific causes of action enumerated in section 33 of the *Crown Suits Act 1898*.

A majority of the High Court (Latham C.J., Rich, McTiernan, and Williams JJ., with Starke J. dissenting) held that a common law petition of right was no longer available in Western Australia. The Court reasoned that the Ordinance of 1867, by providing a new and comprehensive procedure for claims against the Colonial Government, had effectively replaced the common law remedy. While the Ordinance used permissive language ("it shall and may be lawful"), the Court found that its general application to "all cases of dispute or difference" indicated an intention to substitute the statutory procedure. Furthermore, the *Crown Suits Act 1898*, which repealed the Ordinance and established its own framework for claims against the Crown, did not contain provisions preserving the common law right. The Court concluded that the Act provided the exclusive means for enforcing claims against the Crown, and as the suppliant's claim did not fall within the specific causes of action permitted by section 33 of that Act, the common law petition of right was unavailable.

Consequently, the High Court reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appeal was allowed, and the suppliant's petition of right was dismissed.