Coles v Adeney

The case of Coles and Another v Adeney involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellants, Coles and Haynes, sued the respondent, Adeney, for commission on the sale of land. They alleged a verbal agreement whereby Adeney would pay them a commission of 15 per cent of the purchase price for introducing a purchaser to whom the land was subsequently sold. The action was heard by Hood J. in the Supreme Court, who, after hearing evidence from the plaintiffs and no evidence from the defendant, gave judgment for the defendant.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the findings of fact made by the trial judge were supported by the evidence presented. Specifically, the court had to determine if there was sufficient evidence upon which Hood J. could have reasonably concluded that the agreement between the parties was not as alleged by the plaintiffs, but rather that commission was only payable at the stipulated rate if the land was sold for £8 per acre. The appeal also implicitly raised the question of the appellate court's power to disturb a trial judge's findings of fact based on oral evidence, particularly when no evidence was called by the respondent.

The High Court, in dismissing the appeal, reasoned that the case turned entirely on oral evidence, and the trial judge's decision was based on his assessment of that evidence. The court held that the principles applicable to appeals from decisions based on oral evidence were not different from those applied in jury trials. Therefore, if there was evidence upon which the judge could have made his findings, the appellate court should not interfere. The court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs was capable of supporting the conclusion reached by Hood J., even though the defendant had not called evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The High Court affirmed the decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, finding that there was evidence upon which the trial judge might have found as he did.