Whitfeld v De Lauret & Co Ltd

The case of *Whitfeld v De Lauret & Co Ltd* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute arose from a wheat pool scheme implemented by the New South Wales Government, under which flour-millers acted as agents for the Government and were restricted from dealing with wheat outside the scheme. The plaintiff company, De Lauret & Co Ltd, alleged that the Government had maliciously and without lawful excuse induced purchasers and railway commissioners to break contracts for the sale and delivery of wheat, and had also induced shipping companies to refuse to carry wheat interstate, in contravention of various Commonwealth and State Acts.

The High Court was required to determine several legal issues. These included whether the Government's actions in interfering with the plaintiff's contracts were done without reasonable or lawful cause or excuse, and whether the plaintiff had obtained the necessary consent under the War Precautions (Supplementary) Regulations to institute proceedings for all its causes of action. The Court also had to consider the proper direction to the jury regarding damages, particularly the concept of "damages at large," and whether certain evidence tendered by the defendant, relating to the circumstances surrounding the wheat pool, was admissible.

The Court reasoned that the refusal of shipping companies to carry wheat was ultimately caused by the Collector of Customs' refusal to grant a permit, an act for which the New South Wales Government was not liable as the Collector was a Commonwealth officer. Therefore, the Government was not liable under the fourth count of the declaration concerning interstate shipping. Regarding damages, the Court held that the Supreme Court's direction on "damages at large" was potentially misleading and that damages should be compensatory, considering only intended or foreseeable consequences, unless exemplary damages were justified by evidence of conscious wrongdoing. The Court also found that evidence concerning the wheat crop and the reasons for the scheme's institution should have been admitted, as it could have tended to establish reasonable cause or excuse for the Government's actions.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part. It varied the order of the Supreme Court by directing that judgment be entered for the defendant on the fourth count of the declaration. The costs of the appeal were to be costs in the cause.