BULOLO GOLD DREDGING LIMITED V. THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

AO

,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

- GOL GING LIMITED

~--- DHE... COMMONWEALTH OF. AUS. TRALIA.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at__ SYDNEY... —

HL E. Dav, Gor. Prin, Melb. on___27TH_ SEPTEMBER.2946..00000

0.19280/45

BULOLO GOLD DREDGING LIMITED

"ye

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA.

JUDGMENT. McTIERNAN J.

BULOLO_GOLD DREDGING LIMITED =v

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

JUDGMENT. 'McTIERNAN J.

In this action there should be a declaration that 450.69 ounces of gold amalgam which is in the possession of the Commonwealth is the property of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to the possession of it.

Under Order 1V Rule 1 the Oourt may make binding declarations of right in an acbion properly brought whether any consequential relief is or could be claimed therein or not. I do not make any other order than this declaration save an order with respect to costs. That order ig that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the action. It is not necessary to make any further order to do justice between the parties because I assume, and indeed I gather from the statements made by Gounsel for the Commonwealth to the Court during the trial, that if the Court were satisfied that the whole or any part of the gold amalgam claimed by the plaintiff were its property the Commonwealth would hand the whole or such part of the gold amalgam to the plaintiff. It was submitted for the Commonwealth that it became a trustee of this gold amalgam for its true owner and that as such trustee it was entitled to its costs as between solicitor and client of this action. In my opinion there is no substance in this submission. The property in the gold was never in the Commonwealth; it was the custodian for the lawful owner. It appears from the documents in the case that the Commonwealth forced the plaintiff to bring this action in order to establish that the plaintiff was the legal owner of the gold amalgam in question. The Commonwealth defended the action and by its pleading and its conduct of the action put the plaintiff to the proBf of its title to the gold amalgam. The plaintiff has succeeded on the principal issue in the action. The plaintiff's claim in detinue did not substantially add to the time occupied by the issue of ownership.