Colonial Bank of Australasia Ltd v Marshall - [1906] UKPCHCA 3

196HIGH COURT

[1906.

H. C. OF A.

tvith liberty to aj>ply. Respondent to

1906.

pay the. costs of the appeal.

Case re

L.4NOLEY

mitted to the Supreme Court.

Fosteb.

Solicitors, for the appellant, Perkins & Foshery.

Solicitors, for the respondent, John Williamson th Sons.

C. A. W.

CLR304

[PRIVY COUNCIL.]

THE COLONIAL BANK OF AUSTRAL-'|

Appellants ;

ASIA LTD.......................................................j

ANI>

MARSHALL AND ANOTHER

Respondents.

ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF

AUSTRALIA.

Banlcer and cu-itomer— Chf.que—Fraudulent alteration of amount after si/pialure—

—Duty of customer to take precautions against forgery.

Pkivv^Yhatever the duty of a customer towards his banker may be with reference

C’ous'cii.*to the drawing of cheques, the mere fact that a cheque is drawn with spaces

1906.such that a forger can utilize them for the purpose of forgery is not by itself any violation of that obligation.

July 27.

Decision of the High Court {.Uarshall v. The Colonial Hank of Australasia

Ltd., 1 C.L.R., 6.32), affirmed.

Scholfeld V. Ear! of Londesborough, (1896) A.C., 514, followed.

Appeal to His Majesty in Council from the decision of tlte High

Court. {Marshall v. The Colonial Bank of Australasia Ltd. (1).)

* Present.—The Earl of Halsbury,

(1) 1 C.L.R., 632.

Lord Macnaghten, Sir Arthur IVilson,

Sir Alfred Wills.

4 C.L.R.]OF AUBTllALTA.

197

Tlie judgment of their Lordships was delivered by

Covscii

Sir Arthur Wilsox.

The two respondents, Marsliall and

jĝjg

Day, and one Myers, were executors of Ann Myers. As such

tliey opened an account with the appellant banking company in

Melbourne on the 24th March 1900, when they paid in a sum of Australasia

Ltd.

£1,590 15s. 2d.; and against that account cheques were from time

to time drawn signed by the three executors. On the 25th May 1900, before any of such cheques were drawn, the three executors addressed a letter to the bank, by which they requested the bank to pay clieques signed by the three, and sent specimens of their signatures. The course of business followed by the three executors amongst themselves was this. Myers, wlio alone resided in Melbofirne, drew each of the cheques, sent it for signature to Marshall, who signed first, then to Day, who signed second, and finally added his own signature.

Out of the total number of tlie cheipies so di-awn the jiresent controversy relates to five cheipies, which as originally drawn by Myers and signed by Marshall and Day, were for £10, £2 6s. 4d., £50, £10, and £10. But each of these cheijues was so written out as to leave a space between the left luiiid margin and the statement of the amount of tlie cheque, both as given in words and as given in figures, and in that condition it was signed by Marshall and Day. Myers, by acts amounting to simple forgery, added words and figures to the left of those originally written in the cheijues, so turning them apparently into cheques for £110,

£32 6s. 4d., £150, £110, and £110.

The clieques in…

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 Colonial Bank of Australasia Ltd v Marshall

Details

AGLC: Colonial Bank of Australasia Ltd v Marshall [1906] UKPCHCA 3
Case: [1906] UKPCHCA 3
Decision Date: 27 July 1906

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Colonial Bank of Australasia Ltd v Marshall involved a dispute between the bank and the respondents, Marshall and Day, who were executors of an estate. The issue was whether the bank could debit the executors' account for the full amount of cheques that had been fraudulently altered after being signed by the respondents. The respondents argued that the bank should only debit the original amounts of the cheques. The High Court of Australia had previously ruled in favour of the respondents, but the bank appealed to the Privy Council.

The legal issue before the Privy Council was whether the respondents were negligent in drawing the cheques in a manner that allowed for fraudulent alterations. The Privy Council considered the case of Scholfield v Earl of Londesborough, which held that a customer's duty to avoid negligence in drawing cheques does not extend to preventing all possibilities of forgery. The Privy Council found that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of the respondents and affirmed the decision of the High Court. The Privy Council held that the mere fact that the cheques were drawn with spaces that could be utilised for forgery did not amount to negligence.

The Privy Council dismissed the appeal and ordered the bank to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal. The Privy Council also dismissed a petition for special leave to appeal in another case, N. Guthridge Limited v Wilfley Ore Concentrator Syndicate Limited, as there was no question of law in the High Court's judgment. The Privy Council held that the importance of the case to the parties was not sufficient grounds for granting special leave to appeal.

Orders