John F Goulding Pty Ltd v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1932] HCA 37

OF AUSTRALIA. 157

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

F. GOULDING PROPRIETARY LIMITED Appetiant ;

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA,

Refusal to deliver wpon demand—Prior loss of goods—When ¥, ©, ov A. "of action arises—Victorian Railways—Delivery of goods for carriage— 1932, 0 deliver to consignee—Delivery to persons other than owner—Goods — d with more than siz monthe prior to commencement of action—Demand for M&UBOUBNE,

of goods made within six months of commencement of action—" Act Mav 30, 31. ined of "—Whether action commenced "within six months after"— Sypney, Act 1928 (Vict.) (No. 3759), sec, 200, Aug. 15.

'The plaintiff delivered to the defendants, the Victorian Railways Commis- Starke, Dixon gers, certain goods'to be carried by rail and upon arrival to be redelivered "™* "Sy.°"™" to the order of the plaintiff. The goods were safely carried by the defendants o their destination, but after discharge from the trucks all the goods were by or delivered to persons, none of whom was the owner or authorized hy it to receive them. Afterwards the plaintiff made a demand for the goods and, the defendants having previously parted with the goods, there was in _effeot a refusal of such demand. More than six months after the loss of the - ods by the defendants but less than six months after the refusal of the demand the plaintiff brought an action in detinue. The defendants relied 'upon sec. 200 of the Railways Act 1928 (Vict.), which provides that "all 'actions to be brought against the Commissioners or against any person for _ anything done or purporting to have been done uni " certain Parts 'of his Act shall be commenced within six months after the act complained of committed."

'H.C. or A.

1932. Ww Joun F. GovuLpInG Pry. Lx. . 'VicToRIAN Ramways Commas- SIONERS.

HIGH COURT

Held, (1) that the words "the act complained of " in sec, 200 of the Rail Act 1928 refer to the cause of action sued upon ; (2) that, notwithstandin previous loss of the goods by the defendants, a new cause of action in deti arose upon their failure to deliver the goods on the plaintiff's request.