Bayne v Stephens

The case of *Bayne v Stephens* involved an appeal from the Supreme Court of Western Australia concerning an agent's failure to account for funds entrusted to him for investment. The plaintiff had provided the defendant with £4,000 in early 1896 for investment purposes. By June 1897, the defendant had repaid £2,200, leaving £1,800 unaccounted for. The plaintiff sought either the return of this outstanding sum with interest or an account of its expenditure. The defendant claimed to have made three investments on the plaintiff's behalf, and the jury found one of these investments to be properly made, but the other two to be improperly made. The defendant appealed against the jury's findings regarding the two investments.

The legal issues before the Full Court were whether the jury's findings that certain investments were not properly made were against the weight of evidence, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to interest on the outstanding sum. Specifically, the court had to determine if the jury's conclusion that the defendant had not bona fide invested the plaintiff's money in Menzies Kensington shares was reasonable, and if the jury's finding that the plaintiff had not agreed to invest £1,500 in the Great Eastern mine in return for a half interest was determinative of the case. The court also had to consider the appropriateness of awarding interest and the rate at which it should be calculated.

The majority of the court held that the jury's finding regarding the Menzies Kensington shares was against the weight of evidence, finding no case of fraud to be left to the jury. However, they considered the jury's conclusion as to the Great Eastern mine investment to be a reasonable one, though Griffith C.J. dissented, believing the verdict was unsatisfactory due to the jury's approach to the evidence, particularly in treating one transaction as fraudulent and judging others by that standard. The court agreed that interest should be allowed on the judgment, and the reduction of the interest rate by the Supreme Court from 8% to 6% was deemed correct, following the precedent set in *Harsant v. Blaine, Macdonald & Co.*.

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Western Australia was varied. A new trial was ordered for the entire case, except for the Darling Range land transaction.