Legal Research
Cases
Anderson v Densley

Anderson v Densley

Case [1953] HCA 47 28 August 1953

Appeal

Contract Formation

Remedies

Statutory Construction

Standing

Commercial Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

90 CLR 460

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND. Principal and Agent-Commission-Action for recovery of commission by agent-

Sale of property-Engagement or appointment in writing- Connected documents --The Auctioneers and Commission Agents Acts, 1922 to 1951 (Q.) (13 Geo. V. No. 27-15 Geo. VI. No. 16), S. 23 (1) (b). Aug. 5, 6;

Section 23 (1) (b) of The Auctioneers and Commission Agents Acts, 1922 to SYDNEY,

1951, provides that " a commission agent shall not be entitled to sue for Aug. 28.

commission, reward, or other remuneration for or in respect of any transaction, unless his engagement or appointment to act as commission agent in respect of such transaction is in writing, signed by the person to be charged with such

commission, reward, or remuneration, or his agent or representative ".

Held, that S. 23 (1) (b) of the Acts does not require the engagement or appointment of the agent to be in writing and it is sufficient if some writing or connected writings exist evidencing the creation of the relationship of principal and agent in respect of the transaction pursuant to an oral contract.

On the sale of two grazing properties without plant or stock the contract was signed by the principal, as vendor, the agent being described therein as agent for the principal. Through no fault of the vendor the sale was never completed and subsequently by another contract of sale the grazing properties with plant and livestock were sold to the same purchaser, without any reference to the agent. In an action brought by the agent to recover commission in respect of the second transaction, the agent relied on the first contract of sale as evidence of his engagement or appointment in writing.

Held, that the contracts of sale were not writings SO connected as to con- stitute evidence in writing, within the meaning of S. 23 (1) (b) of The Auctioneers and Commission Agents Acts 1922 to 1951, of the engagement or appointment of the agent in respect of the second transaction.

Canniffe v. Howie (1925) Q.S.R. 121; Skipper v. Syrmis (1925) Q.S.R. 129 Pettigrew v. Klumpp (1942) Q.S.R. 131, approved.

Decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Matthews J.) reversed.

90 CLR 461

APPEAL from the Supreme Court of Queensland.

In the Supreme Court of Queensland Mark Densley sued William Charles Anderson for commission due to him as an agent on the sale to Noel Pryce of certain grazing properties together with plant and livestock.

At the trial the jury found that the defendant engaged the plaintiff to act as his agent in the sale of the properties and that the plaintiff found the purchaser and was the effective cause of the sale. The trial judge (Matthews J.) held that the first contract of sale evidenced an engagement or appointment of the plaintiff to act as commission agent in respect of the transaction and entered judgment for the plaintiff.

From this decision the defendant appealed to the High Court. The facts are…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Anderson v Densley

Details

AGLC: Anderson v Densley [1953] HCA 47
Case: [1953] HCA 47
Decision Date: 28 August 1953

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal from the Supreme Court of Queensland concerning a claim for commission by a real estate agent, Mark Densley (the respondent), against his principal, William Charles Anderson (the appellant). Densley sought commission on the sale of grazing properties, plant, and livestock. The dispute centred on whether Densley's engagement or appointment as a commission agent was sufficiently evidenced in writing as required by section 23 (1) (b) of The Auctioneers and Commission Agents Acts 1922 to 1951 (Q.).

The legal issues before the High Court were twofold: first, whether the amendment to section 23 (1) (b) of the Act in 1936, which substituted "act as commission agent" for "act as agent," required an express written appointment as a commission agent or remuneration by commission; and second, whether the first contract of sale, which described the respondent as agent for the vendor, constituted sufficient written evidence of his engagement or appointment as a commission agent in respect of the subsequent, ultimately completed, sale of the properties with plant and livestock.

The Court held that the amendment to section 23 (1) (b) did not alter the established principle that connected writings evidencing an oral contract of agency were sufficient. This principle, established in cases like *Canniffe v. Howie*, meant that an express mention of "commission agent" or remuneration by commission was not necessary if the writing demonstrated the creation of the principal-agent relationship for the transaction. However, the Court found that the first contract of sale, while acknowledging the respondent as agent for the sale of the land, did not constitute evidence of his engagement or appointment as a commission agent for the broader transaction involving the sale of the grazing properties together with plant and livestock. The Court concluded that the first contract and a related second contract were not sufficiently connected to evidence the agency for the final, completed sale. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment for the respondent was set aside, and judgment was entered for the appellant.

Orders