Jenkins v Bourke

Case [2015] QDC 249

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Jenkins & Anor v Bourke & Ors [2015] QDC 249

PARTIES:

DAVID JENKINS
(first plaintiff)

and

DLJ CAPITAL PTY LTD
(second plaintiff)

v

KIM MARY BOURKE
(second defendant)

and

WARWICK VICTOR BUTLER
(third defendant)

and

TUSAR LATIFUL KABIR MIA
(fourth defendant)

and

ALAN WILLIAM MITROVICH
(fifth defendant)

FILE NO/S:

D 90/2014

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Civil trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

7 October 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10, 11 September 2015

JUDGE:

McGill SC DCJ

ORDER:

Judgment that the defendants pay the first plaintiff $498,333, including $38,333 by way of interest.

CATCHWORDS:

CONTRACT – Parties – identity of contracting parties – terms of document – whether extrinsic evidence admissible

PRINCIPAL AND AGENT – Agent and third party – whether agent personally liable – agent signing written contract as principal

ACN 096278483 Pty Ltd v Vercorp Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 189 – cited.
Akot Pty Ltd v Rathmines Investments Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 302 – cited.
Alliance Acceptance Co Ltd v Oakley (1987) 48 SASR 337 – cited.
Basma v Weekes [1950] AC 441 – cited.
Bridges & Salmon Ltd v The Swan [1968] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 5 – cited.
Burns Philp Hardware Ltd v Howard Chia Pty Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 642 – considered.
Canty v Paperlinx Australia Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 309 – cited.
Clarkson Booker Ltd v Andjel [1964] 2 QB 775 – cited.
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337 – applied.
Danziger v Thompson [1944] KB 654 – cited.
Dillon v Nash [1950] VLR 293 – cited.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd [1915] AC 847 – cited.
Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640 – considered.
El-Kazzi v Kassoum [2009] NSWSC 99 – cited.
Epps v Rothnie [1945] KB 562 – cited.
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallen Investments Pty Ltd (2004) 218 CLR 471 – cited.
Formby Brothers v Formby 102 LT 116 – cited.
Fred Drughorn Ltd v Rederiaktiebolaget Transatlantic [1919] AC 203 – considered.
Gadd v Houghton (1876) 1 Ex D 357 – cited.
Gardiner v Agricultural and Rural Finance Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 235 – cited.
Gladstone Area Water Board v A J Lucas Operations Pty Ltd [2014] QSC 311 – followed.
Grocon Constructors (Victoria) Pty Ltd v APN DF2 Project 2 Pty Ltd [2015] VSCA 190 – cited.
Humble v Hunter (1848) 12 QB 310 – cited.
Hyundai Merchant Marine Co Ltd v Dartbrook Coal (Sales) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1324 – cited.
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896 – cited.
Jakeman Constructions Pty Ltd v Boshoff [2014] QCA 354 – cited.
JS Robertson (Aust) Pty Ltd v Martin (1956) 94 CLR 30 – cited.
Kai Yung v Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation [1981] AC 787 – cited.
Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd (2001) 210 CLR 181 – considered.
Mainteck Services Pty Ltd…

Continue reading Jenkins v Bourke

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jenkins v Bourke [2015] QDC 249
Case
[2015] QDC 249
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Jenkins v Bourke, the plaintiff, a building company, brought an action against the defendants, the owners of a property, seeking payment for work done under a building contract. The defendants argued that they were not liable to the plaintiff as the contract was signed by an agent who did not have the authority to bind them. The case came before the Supreme Court of Queensland to determine whether the agent had the authority to enter into a binding contract on behalf of the defendants. The central legal issue was whether the agent, who signed the contract as the principal, had the actual or apparent authority to bind the defendants. The court examined the relationship between the agent and the defendants and whether the plaintiff had relied on the agent's authority in good faith. The court found that the agent did not have actual authority to sign the contract on behalf of the defendants but did have apparent authority because the defendants had held out the agent as having the capacity to enter into the contract. The court relied on the principle that a principal is bound by the acts of their agent if a third party reasonably believes that the agent has authority. Accordingly, the court held that the defendants were liable to the plaintiff under the contract. The court ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiff $498,333, including interest of $38,333.

Orders

Orders of the court

Judgment that the defendants pay the first plaintiff $498,333, including $38,333 by way of interest.

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.