COOKE v WOOLWORTHS LTD [1988] NSWCA 27

COOKE v WOOLWORTHS LTD [1988] NSWCA 27

The appellant failed to establish that the Commissioner of Police or his valid delegate had exercised discretion and determined that the information supplied by the appellant led to both the arrest and conviction of Danielson, as required by the reward offer. Accordingly, no entitlement to the $250,000 reward was established. The Assistant Commissioner's letter only determined that the plaintiff's actions led to the 'early arrest' of Danielson, not his conviction, and thus the condition precedent to claiming the reward was not fulfilled.

Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Noel Richmond Cooke; Respondent/defendant: Woolworths Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 1988
Procedural Posture
Contract Claim (offer of Reward) / Appeal (court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Nsw)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal allowed. Judgment for the respondent. Costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Acceptance by Conduct, Offer of Reward, Construction of Contractual Terms, Discretion and Delegation in Contract Performance
Contract Acceptance by Conduct Offer of Reward Construction of Contractual Terms Discretion and Delegation in Contract Performance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Noel Richmond Cooke

Appellant/plaintiff

Woolworths Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Contract Claim (offer of Reward) / Appeal (court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the information supplied by the appellant led to the arrest and conviction of Danielson for the purpose of entitlement to the reward;
  2. 2 Whether the discretion vested in the Commissioner of Police extended to determining the amount of the reward or only entitlement;
  3. 3 Whether proper delegation of the Commissioner's discretion occurred;

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to establish that the Commissioner of Police or his valid delegate had exercised discretion and determined that the information supplied by the appellant led to both the arrest and conviction of Danielson, as required by the reward offer. Accordingly, no entitlement to the $250,000 reward was established. The Assistant Commissioner's letter only determined that the plaintiff's actions led to the 'early arrest' of Danielson, not his conviction, and thus the condition precedent to claiming the reward was not fulfilled.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Cross-appeal allowed. Judgment for the respondent. Costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Cross-appeal allowed.