Ex Parte

Case [1934] HCA 4


51 CLR 190

EX PARTE RICHARDS.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF Practice-Goods rejected by purchaser-Action by vendor-Goods sold and delivered,

and goods bargained and sold-Payment into Court with denial of liability- Acceptance by vendor-Goods not returned to purchaser-Action in detinue by purchaser-Effect of payment in and acceptance-District Courts Act 1912 April 4.

(N.S.W.) (No. 23 of 1912), sec. 72*-District Court Rules 1914 (N.S.W.), r. 132*, Form 93. High Court-Appeal-Special leave-Small amount involved.

In an action brought in the District Court of New South Wales, the plaintiff, a company, claimed the sum of £71 5s. 9d. for goods sold and delivered and goods bargained and sold, being £50 19s. 4d. for certain items of furniture, including a three-piece suite, and £20 6s. 5d. for general items. As to the sum of £50 19s. 4d., the defendant pleaded never indebted. As regards the suite, he stated that he had rejected it because it did not comply with his order, and that the rejection had been accepted by the plaintiff. He paid into Court the amount claimed for the general items, and, with denial of liability, a further sum of £35

same to the plaintiff or his attorney, 1912 (N.S.W.) provides (1) A defen-

but if such notice is not given, such dant may, within the prescribed time,

sum of money shall remain in Court to pay into Court such sum of money as

abide the order of the Judge." Rule he may think a full satisfaction of the

132 of the District Court Rules 1914 claim of the plaintiff, together with the

(N.S.W.), provides :-(1) If the plain- costs incurred by the plaintiff up to the

tiff elects to accept, in satisfaction of his time of such payment

claim, such money as shall have been Every such payment shall be taken to

paid into Court by the defendant, admit the claim in respect of which the payment is made, unless the defendant,

notice of denial of liability, he shall at the time of paying the money into

send to the registrar and to the defen- Court, files with the registrar a notice

stating that, notwithstanding

stating such acceptance such payment, the defendant denies his

Thereupon the action shall abate, liability. (4) If the plaintiff elects to

except as herein provided accept the sum paid in in full satisfac-

In default of such notice of acceptance tion as aforesaid, and gives notice of

by the plaintiff the action shall pro- such acceptance in the prescribed manner, the registrar shall pay over the

51 CLR 191

in satisfaction of the whole of the claim other than " that for the general items. Both sums were accepted by the plaintiff in satisfaction of the claims in respect of which they are paid in." The defendant subsequently sued the plaintiff in the District Court, in detinue, claiming the return of the suite or its value, £19 15s. A judgment in his favour was set aside by the Supreme Court. On an application by…

Continue reading Ex Parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Ex Parte [1934] HCA 4
Case
[1934] HCA 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Mr. Richards, had been the defendant in a prior District Court action brought by Associated Traders Ltd. (the respondent), who claimed payment for goods sold and delivered, including a three-piece suite. Richards had rejected the suite, asserting it did not meet his order and that this rejection was accepted by the company. He paid a portion of the claimed amount into court without denial of liability and a further sum with denial of liability, which the company accepted. Subsequently, Richards sued the company in detinue for the return of the suite or its value.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the effect of the payment into court and subsequent acceptance of funds by Associated Traders Ltd. in the initial action. Specifically, the court had to determine whether this acceptance constituted a complete satisfaction of all causes of action, including the claim for the suite, and whether it affirmed the property in the goods as belonging to Richards, thereby entitling him to possession. The District Court judge had found in favour of Richards, but this decision was overturned by a majority of the Supreme Court.

The High Court, by a majority, was of the opinion that the acceptance of the money paid into court, particularly the sum paid in with a denial of liability, operated as a compromise and a complete satisfaction of all causes of action in respect of which it was paid. This meant that the applicant, Richards, was likely entitled to the suite or its value. However, despite this view, the High Court refused special leave to appeal.

The court unanimously agreed that the amount in dispute was too small to warrant intervention by the High Court. The justices considered the matter trivial as between the parties and concluded that, in the interests of bringing the litigation to an end, special leave should be refused, notwithstanding that some members of the court disagreed with the Supreme Court's decision and recognised the question as having some general importance.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.