Duncanson v Haywood

11 CLR 540

DUNCANSON HAYWOOD,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF HOBART,

Contract-Sale of land-Action for deceit-Damages-Evidence-Special leave to Feb. 13, 14,

appeal-Rescission of-No substantial injustice.

In an action by a purchaser of land against the vendor for deceit the jury found that there had been fraud, but gave no finding upon the question whether the plaintiff had suffered any damage. The Supreme Court of

11 CLR 541

Tasmania held that there was no evidence of damage and non-suited the plaintiff. Special leave to appeal to the High Court having been obtained,

Held, that, though there was evidence of damage upon which the Supreme Court might have ordered a new trial, yet the circumstances were such that there was no reason for thinking that the plaintiff had been really deceived or suffered any substantial injustice, and therefore that the special leave to appeal should be rescinded.

Special leave to appeal from the decision of the Supreme Court of Tas- mania: Duncanson v. Haywood, 6 Tas. L.R., 16, rescinded.

APPEAL by special leave from the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

An action was brought in the Supreme Court of Tasmania by John Duncanson against Herbert Haywood in which it was alleged by the writ that the defendant, being the owner of certain land and hereditaments, was treating with the plaintiff for the sale of the same to the plaintiff and fraudulently and deceitfully stated and pretended to the plaintiff that the said land and hereditaments contained 162 acres in two blocks of 112 acres and 50 acres respectively, and further that the 112 acres was good land mostly under cultivation, whereby the plaintiff was induced to buy the two blocks of land at a certain price per acre and to pay to the defendant certain moneys in pursuance of such purchase, viz. £300, and that the plaintiff thereupon took possession of the land. The writ went on to allege that in truth and in fact the two blocks of land contained only 90 acres and 50 acres respec- tively and that the defendant fraudulently and deceitfully at- tempted to make up the area of 112 acres by adding a third block of land belonging to him containing 23 acres of worthless land, and that the plaintiff had thereby lost the value of 23 acres of good land at the agreed price and had since the date of the purchase lost the profits which he would have derived from the possession of the 23 acres of good land. The plaintiff claimed £500 and interest on £368 14s. at 6 per cent. per annum from the date of the writ until payment or judgment.

The defendant pleaded not guilty, and issue was joined. The action was tried before a jury who answered certain ques- tions put to them by the learned Judge who gave liberty to either party to move the Full Court to enter judgment. The Full

11 CLR 542

Court subsequently non-suited the plaintiff with costs: Duncan

son v. Haywood 1

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The appellant, John Duncanson, had purchased land from the respondent, Herbert Haywood. Duncanson alleged that Haywood had fraudulently misrepresented the size and quality of the land, inducing him to purchase it at an inflated price. Duncanson claimed damages for deceit.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the Supreme Court of Tasmania had erred in non-suiting the plaintiff, Duncanson, and whether special leave to appeal should be rescinded. The Supreme Court had found that there was no evidence of damage suffered by Duncanson, despite a jury finding that fraud had occurred. The core of the dispute revolved around the measure of damages in an action for deceit and whether sufficient evidence had been presented to establish that Duncanson had suffered a financial loss.

The High Court, in considering the appeal, acknowledged that the Supreme Court's conclusion that there was no evidence of damage was technically flawed, as the contract price itself could be considered evidence of value. However, the Court also considered the broader circumstances of the case. They noted that there was substantial evidence contradicting Duncanson's claims of fraud and suggesting that the land, even if not precisely as represented, was worth the purchase price. Given the weakness of the evidence of fraud, the difficulty in proving substantial damages, and the lack of a significant question of law of general importance, the High Court determined that no substantial injustice had occurred.

Consequently, the High Court rescinded the special leave to appeal. This meant that the decision of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, which had non-suited the plaintiff, stood. The parties were left in the position they were in following the Supreme Court's judgment, with the High Court declining to order a new trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established