Travel Air International Pty Ltd v Raymond Bastion

The matter in question is an appeal by Travel Air International Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, against a decision of the Local Court not to set aside a consent judgment in a dispute over unpaid travel commissions. The defendant, Raymond Bastion, was previously a director of the plaintiff company and owed the plaintiff a sum of money. The plaintiff's claim was that they did not consent to the judgment and that their solicitor acted without their authority. The central issue before the court was whether the solicitor for the plaintiffs had the authority to enter into a compromise agreement with the defendant, specifically whether there was ostensible authority to permit such an agreement.

The court examined whether the solicitor had the authority to act on behalf of the plaintiffs. It considered whether the solicitor had apparent authority, which would bind the plaintiffs even if the solicitor did not have actual authority. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the solicitor had ostensible authority, as the defendant reasonably believed the solicitor was acting within the scope of their authority. This belief was based on the conduct of the plaintiffs, which led the defendant to reasonably assume the solicitor had the power to compromise the matter. The court also considered the principle of agency and whether the solicitor's actions fell within the scope of their authority.

Consequently, the court held that the solicitor had ostensible authority to enter into the compromise agreement, and therefore the consent judgment was valid. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Local Court not to set aside the consent judgment was upheld. The court found that the plaintiffs were bound by the actions of their solicitor, who had acted within the scope of their ostensible authority.