Wood v Little

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria concerning a dispute over a land agent's commission. The plaintiff, a land agent and a member of a municipal council, was employed by the defendant to sell his land to the Closer Settlement Board. The plaintiff's efforts were the effective cause of the sale. The defendant argued that the agency contract was illegal and void as it was against public policy, due to the plaintiff's dual role as a land agent with a pecuniary interest in the sale and a councillor who might be called upon to advise the Board on land purchases within the municipality.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the contract of agency was illegal and void as being contrary to public policy. This required the Court to determine if the plaintiff's private interest as a land agent had a tendency to interfere with the proper discharge of his public duty as a municipal councillor under the relevant Discharged Soldiers Settlement Acts. A secondary issue was whether section 181 of the Local Government Act 1915 (Vic.), which prohibits councillors from voting or discussing matters in which they have a pecuniary interest, provided any exoneration for the plaintiff.

The High Court, by majority, held that the agreement was illegal and void as being against public policy. The Court reasoned that the plaintiff's private interest in securing a commission on the sale had a tendency to interfere with his public duty to advise the Closer Settlement Board impartially. This principle was applied on the authority of *Horne v. Barber* (1920) 27 CLR 494. The Court further held that section 181 of the Local Government Act 1915 did not provide exoneration, as its purpose was to prohibit councillors from participating in matters where they had a pecuniary interest under penalty, not to permit them to acquire such interests in matters where doing so would otherwise be illegal due to public policy concerns.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria was reversed. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to recover commission on the sale. The plaintiff was ordered to pay the costs of the action, the appeal to the Supreme Court of Victoria, and the appeal to the High Court.