Petition of right is required for claims that would divest Crown-held stock, while separate damages claims may still proceed.

Relief that would in substance divest stock held in trust for the Crown, including rectification of the register and transfer of the stock into the plaintiff's name, could not be obtained by ordinary action and lay only by petition of right. A separate damages claim against the corporate defendants was not barred merely because the plaintiff's title might depend on challenging the impugned Crown authority, since that claim did not require direct relief against the Crown. The matter in controversy exceeded the statutory monetary threshold, so the plaintiff was entitled as of right to appeal to His Majesty in Council.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the plaintiff could, by action, seek relief that would in substance take away stock held in trust for the Crown, or whether such relief lay only by petition of right; (ii) whether the claim for damages against the corporate defendants could proceed notwithstanding that the plaintiff's title might depend on challenging the impugned Crown authority; (iii) whether the plaintiff was entitled as of right to appeal to His Majesty in Council on the ground that the matter in controversy exceeded the statutory monetary threshold.

Issue (i): whether the plaintiff could, by action, seek relief that would in substance take away stock held in trust for the Crown, or whether such relief lay only by petition of right.

Analysis: The relief sought in respect of rectification of the stock register and registration of the stock in the plaintiff's name would in substance require stock to be taken away from the Crown's trustee and from the Crown's beneficial interest. The claim therefore attacked a title derived through the Crown and sought recovery of property that, on the pleadings, stood in the name of the Minister of Finance in trust for His Majesty. Such relief could not be obtained in an ordinary action.

Conclusion: This relief was not maintainable by action and could only be pursued by petition of right.

Issue (ii): whether the claim for damages against the corporate defendants could proceed notwithstanding that the plaintiff's title might depend on challenging the impugned Crown authority.

Analysis: The damages claim was directed against the companies for alleged breach of duty in removing the plaintiff's name from the register. It did not require an order against the Crown, nor did it seek to substitute the plaintiff on the register in place of another person as necessary relief. A damages claim against fellow subjects was not barred merely because the plaintiff's ultimate title might depend on invalidating the impugned legislation or orders.

Conclusion: The damages claim was allowed to proceed.

Issue (iii): whether the plaintiff was entitled as of right to appeal to His Majesty in Council on the ground that the matter in controversy exceeded the statutory monetary threshold.

Analysis: The appeal determined whether the action could continue to pursue damages exceeding the statutory limit. The dismissal of the action had the practical effect of ending that damages claim. The matter in controversy therefore exceeded the prescribed monetary amount for an appeal as of right.

Conclusion: The plaintiff was entitled as of right to appeal to His Majesty in Council.

Final Conclusion: The relief seeking rectification of the register and restoration or acquisition of the stock was stayed, the damages claim against the corporate defendants was left open to proceed, and the appeal as of right was upheld on the monetary threshold question.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief that would divest the Crown's trustee of stock or property held for the Crown can be sought only by petition of right, but a separate damages action against private defendants may proceed even if the plaintiff's title depends on challenging the Crown-derived authority.

---