Hamilton v Lethbridge

In *Hamilton v Lethbridge*, the Supreme Court of New South Wales considered a dispute concerning an infant's right to practise law. The plaintiff, Hamilton, had entered into articles of clerkship with the defendant, Lethbridge, a solicitor. Hamilton sought to be released from these articles, arguing that they were void due to his infancy at the time of their execution.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether articles of clerkship entered into by an infant were void *ab initio* or merely voidable. The Court was required to determine if the infant plaintiff had the legal capacity to bind himself to the terms of the articles and, if so, whether his subsequent actions constituted a ratification of the agreement.

The Court held that articles of clerkship, being a contract for the benefit of the infant, were not void but rather voidable at the infant's election. Applying the principles of contract law concerning infants, the Court found that the plaintiff, by continuing to act under the articles and by his conduct after reaching the age of majority, had ratified the agreement. This ratification rendered the articles binding upon him.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's application for release from his articles.