Administration of Territory of Papua and New Guinea v Leahy

For the reasons given, the case falls into the class of which illustrations may be found in Australian Woollen Mills Pty. Ltd. v. The Commonwealth [1] , and Milne v. Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania [2] . The arrangements made on 7th June 1954 were not contractual and the judgment giving damages for the failure of the Administration, through the two defaulting officers, to give effect to them on its part cannot be sustained.

1. (1954) 92 C.L.R. 424; (1955) 93 C.L.R. 546. 2. (1956) 95 C.L.R. 460, at pp. 472, 473.

The pleadings which went to trial alleged no other cause of action than breach of contract. In an earlier form they had contained a claim for damages for tort, alleging negligence on the part of the Administration in carrying out the tick eradication campaign. The learned Chief Justice held on demurrer that the respondent had no case in negligence, because the failure of the Administration's officers to do more than they did towards eradicating the ticks was not the cause of the damage complained of: it was caused by the ticks. His Honour referred to the case of East Suffolk Rivers Catchment Board v. Kent [3] , and his decision on this part of the case was fully justified by that authority.