On 6th June 1904 the defendant agreed to disclose certain information to April the plaintiffs, M. and G., by which it was anticipated that the plaintiffs would recover certain land, and in consideration of his doing so the plaintiffs agreed that the defendant should receive 25 per cent. out of the net proceeds recovered. The information given by the defendant resulted in the plaintiffs recovering two pieces of land of about 160 and 41 acres respectively, situate near a railway station, but without immediate access to it. The share of the plaintiff G. in the land was held by her as administratrix of her deceased brother's estate, Various negotiations and communications took place between the plaintiffs, their solicitor, and the defendant for disposal of the land, in which the plaintiffs and defendant dealt with one another as co-owners of a property acquired for the purpose of re-sale, and it was pointed out that to make a successful sale it was essential that certain adjoining land belonging to one O'Brien should first be acquired. After several unsuccessful efforts dispose of the land, in the course of which the plaintiffs refused to agree the purchase of O'Brien's land, on 2nd April 1906 the plaintiffs offered to sell the defendant the 160 acres together with $14 acre of adjoining land, which in the meantime had been purchased by the plaintiff M., and which would afford

12 CLR 580

access to the railway station, at the price of £24 per acre for the 160 acres, and £100 for the other land. On 14th April an agreement was made between the plaintiffs and the defendant for sale of the land at the price offered, sub- ject to the approval of the Registrar of Probate with regard to the share held by the plaintiff G., as administratrix, which was afterwards obtained on 28th May. The plaintiffs knew on 2nd April that the defendant was buying for the purpose of an immediate re-sale at a profit, and that he contemplated the purchase of O'Brien's land. On 12th April an agreement had been made by the defendant to sell to the Caledonian Coal Co. the land included in the plaintiffs' offer of 2nd April, together with 60 acres of adjoining land over which the defendant had since obtained an option of purchase from O'Brien, for the lump sum of £6,350. This agreement was not disclosed to the plaintiffs when they entered into the agreement of 14th April, nor to the Registrar of Probate. The transfer from the plaintiffs was made direct to the Caledonian Coal Co., and in apportioning the lump sum for the purpose of the transfer it was stated at £4,800. The whole of the purchase money was received by the plaintiffs solicitors, who retained…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Jones v Bouffier

Details

AGLC: Jones v Bouffier [1911] HCA 7
Case: [1911] HCA 7
Decision Date: 12 April 1911

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Jones v Bouffier* involved a dispute between the plaintiffs, Martin Bouffier and Grace Bouffier (as administratrix of her deceased brother's estate), and the defendant, a solicitor. The plaintiffs sought to have a sale agreement for certain land declared voidable. The core of the dispute stemmed from an initial agreement where the defendant was to receive a percentage of any proceeds recovered for the plaintiffs, and a subsequent sale of land by the plaintiffs to the defendant.

The legal issues before the court were whether the agreement for the sale of land was voidable on two grounds. Firstly, the plaintiffs alleged that a fiduciary relationship of principal and agent existed between themselves and the defendant at the time of the sale, and that the defendant had failed to disclose material facts regarding the property's value, specifically a pre-existing agreement to re-sell the land to a third party. Secondly, the plaintiffs contended that the approval of the sale by the Registrar of Probates had been obtained through the defendant's non-disclosure of these material facts. The plaintiffs also argued that an initial agreement for the defendant to receive a share of recovered proceeds was champertous.

The Full Court of the High Court of Australia, by majority, held that while the initial agreement was indeed champertous, the plaintiffs were not entitled to a refund of the defendant's agreed share as there was no evidence of fraud or undue pressure, and the bargain was not improvident. Crucially, the Court found that the agreement for the sale of land was not voidable. The majority reasoned that the evidence did not support the existence of a principal and agent relationship at the time of the sale; instead, the parties were dealing with each other at arm's length as vendor and purchaser. Furthermore, the Court held that the defendant had no duty to disclose his re-sale agreement to the Registrar of Probates, as his status as a purchaser did not impose such an obligation.

Consequently, the appeal by the defendant was allowed, and the decision of the Equity Court was reversed. The plaintiffs' claim for relief based on the alleged voidability of the sale agreement was dismissed.

Orders