Harvey v Phillips

In *Harvey v Phillips*, the plaintiff, Harvey, sought to set aside a compromise agreement entered into by his counsel, Phillips, on his behalf. The dispute arose from an action concerning a property dispute. Harvey alleged that Phillips had exceeded his actual authority in agreeing to the compromise, and that this limitation on authority was unknown to the defendant.

The central legal issue before the court was whether a compromise agreement entered into by counsel, acting on behalf of a client, could be set aside where the counsel had exceeded their actual authority, and the opposing party was unaware of this limitation. The court was required to consider the scope of counsel's ostensible authority to compromise litigation and the circumstances under which such an agreement could be vitiated.

The court held that counsel has ostensible authority to compromise litigation on behalf of their client, and this authority is generally binding on the client unless the opposing party has notice of any limitation on that authority. The principle applied was that a client is bound by the acts of their agent (in this case, counsel) within the scope of the agent's ostensible authority, even if the agent has acted contrary to secret instructions. The court found that there was no evidence that the defendant had notice of any limitation on Phillips' authority to compromise the matter.

Consequently, the court dismissed Harvey's application to set aside the compromise agreement.