S a Joseph and Rickard Ltd v Lindley - [1905] HCA 52

S. A. JOSEPH AND RICKARD LTD.

LINDLEY AND OTHERS

DEFENDANTS,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

NEW SOUTH WALES. Principal and agent-Representative committee of combine-Liability to account-

Delegation with assent of principals-Intention of parties. Practice - Verdict for plaintiff by consent- Verdict set aside where upon documents SYDNEY,

and admitted facts defendant entitled to judgment. Nov. 27, 28,

A number of persons formed a combine for the purpose of controlling the local market for imported maize, and agreed to be bound by certain rules

A committee was appointed to carry out the executive and financial work of the combine in connection with the sale and disposal of the maize and the distribution of the proceeds of sales amongst the members, and to act prac tically as directors of the combine. The members bound themselves by agree ment with the committee to complete a contract of sale to the committee of the amount of maize which they respectively undertook to supply, and to deliver the maize at the order of the committee to the various purchasers. By

3 CLR 281

one of the rules the committee were required to delegate the executive and financial work to some firm to be approved by them, and in pursuance of this a certain firm, with the knowledge and consent of the members at a general meeting, entered into an agreement with the committee to take over all financial responsibility imposed upon the committee by the rules, to carry out all the administrative work of the combine, to render a complete statement to members upon final completion, to issue all orders to purchasers, to collect and receive all payments from buyers, and to hold the proceeds in trust until distributed, and to distribute all moneys due to members in accordance with the rules. The objects of the combine having been completed, the appellants, who were members of the combine, brought an action against the committee to recover the balance due to them out of the proceeds of the sales of their

Held, that the intention of the parties, as shown by the terms of the agreement made between the members of the combine and the committee, was that all the pecuniary liabilities originally imposed upon the committee were to be transferred to the firm to whom the authority of the committee was delegated, and that when that firm, with the knowledge and consent of the members, and in the terms of the agreement approved by them, accepted financial responsibility, the liability of the committee to account for the proceeds of the sales came to an end.

Grain's Case, 1 Ch. D., 307, at p. 315, and Harman's Case, 1 Ch. D., 326, applied.

Where a party to an action, after evidence has been taken, consents to an adverse verdict, with leave reserved to move to have the verdict set aside and judgment entered for him, all disputed questions of fact must be taken as found against him, and the verdict must…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read S a Joseph and Rickard Ltd v Lindley and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1905] HCA 52
Decision Date: 29 November 1905

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New South Wales considered the liability of a representative committee of a combine to account to its principals. The dispute arose from the committee's actions in delegating certain responsibilities, which the principals alleged constituted a breach of their duty to account. The court was asked to determine whether the committee, acting as an agent for its principals, had discharged its obligations.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the committee's delegation of duties, with the assent of the principals, absolved them of their liability to account. This involved an examination of the intention of the parties at the time the agency relationship was established and the scope of the committee's authority. The court also had to consider the implications of a prior consent verdict for the plaintiff, which had been set aside by the primary judge.

The court reasoned that the assent of the principals to the delegation was a crucial factor. It found that the parties had intended for the committee to have the power to delegate certain functions, and that this delegation did not, in itself, constitute a breach of the duty to account. The court applied principles of agency law, focusing on the express and implied terms of the agreement between the principals and the committee, and the effect of the principals' consent. The court noted that where documents and admitted facts clearly demonstrate that a defendant is entitled to judgment, a consent verdict for the plaintiff may be set aside.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, upholding the primary judge's decision to set aside the consent verdict and enter judgment for the defendant.

Orders