RESPONDENTS. PETITIONERS, Contract-Bunk deposit receipt lodged as security for due performance of contract
with Crown-Liability of Crown to repay money represented by deposit receipt - Chose in action consisting of right against Crown - Assignment-Petition right-Crown Remedies and Liability Act 1890 (Vict.) (No. 1080) sec. 20.
A chose in action consisting of a right against the Crown can be assigned so as to entitle the assignee to present a petition of right under the Crown Remedies and Liability Act 1890, sec. 20, in respect of it.
In May 1892 the Government of Victoria called for tenders for the supply of coal to certain Government Departments for the period 1st July 1892 to 30th June 1893, one of the conditions being that: - " Security will be required in cash Government debentures or bank deposit receipt in favour of the Secre- tary, Tender Board." P., acting for B., his undisclosed principal, tendered, his tender was accepted, and two contracts were entered into between him and " W. Kemp, Secretary to the Tender Board of Victoria for and on behalf of Her Majesty and Her Majesty's Government of the said Colony." The amount of the security in respect of the two tenders was £710. Each contract provided that in the event of the contractor failing to carry out the contract the contract security money will in that case be absolutely for- feited." and each contained a condition that deductions might be made from the " security money " for certain breaches of the contract. P., who had an overdrawn account at the L.C. Bank, into which he paid moneys received by him for the sale of coal on behalf of B., drew a cheque on that account for £710, and received in exchange for it from the Bank a deposit receipt for £710 in favour of Kemp, repayable in twelve months with interest, and purporting
to be not transferable. This deposit receipt P. handed to Kemp as security for and until the completion of the contracts, and received a receipt for it which he transmitted to B. Before the contract was completed the L.C. Bank suspended payment, and that suspension was continued until after the con- tracts were completed. On their due completion P. signed an order in Form
H to the Regulations under the Audit Act 1890 requesting Kemp to pay to R., an agent of B., the amount of the deposit receipt. R. presented the order to Kemp and asked for the money. Kemp refused to pay it, but offered to hand the deposit receipt to R., who refused to accept it. In 1898 the Crown handed the deposit receipt to the L.C. Bank, which had then been recon- structed, and to which P. was still indebted to an amount exceeding the amount of the deposit receipt, receiving from the Bank an indemnity, and the Bank destroyed the deposit receipt. In 1906 P. by deed…
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 R v Brown
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Brown [1912] HCA 6
Case
[1912] HCA 6
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *John Brown and Others v. His Majesty the King* involved a petition of right presented by John Brown and others against the Crown. The petitioners claimed to be assignees of a sum of £710, which had been lodged as security for the performance of coal supply contracts with the Government of Victoria. The dispute centred on whether the Crown was legally obligated to repay this sum to the petitioners, who asserted their right as assignees of the original contractor, Pigott Bros. & Co.
The High Court of Australia was required to determine several legal issues. Primarily, the court had to ascertain whether, upon the due completion of the contracts, the Crown owed a legal obligation to Pigott Bros. & Co. for the return of the security money. Further, the court needed to consider whether a chose in action, specifically a right against the Crown, was assignable in a manner that would allow an assignee to pursue a petition of right. The court also had to assess the validity and effect of the purported assignment of the right to the security money to the petitioners.
A majority of the High Court, comprising Griffith C.J. and Barton J., held that upon the due completion of the contracts, the Crown was under a legal obligation to pay a sum equivalent to the deposit receipt to Pigott Bros. & Co. This obligation was characterised as a debt recoverable by a petition of right as money had and received. The court found that the right to this sum was assignable, and that the assignment executed in 1906, coupled with notice given to the Crown, entitled the petitioners to recover the amount. Isaacs J., dissenting, viewed the deposit receipt as security for which the Crown had a charge, and questioned the assignability of the right to petition the Crown.
The Supreme Court of Victoria's decision was varied and affirmed as varied by the High Court. The appeal by the Crown was dismissed, with the majority finding in favour of the petitioners, establishing their entitlement to recover the £710 from the Crown.