Bucknell v Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited [1937] HCA 35

Bucknell v Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited [1937] HCA 35

By majority (Dixon and McTiernan JJ.; Evatt J. dissenting), the letter of 20th December 1933 constituted a sufficient acknowledgment to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations. It admitted liability in unqualified terms and did not include anything inconsistent with a promise to pay; there was nothing in the circumstances to preclude the bank from relying on the letter as an admission of liability to the full extent of the amount claimed.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Norman Charles Bucknell; Respondent/plaintiff: The Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Ltd.
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / High Court of Australia; on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Acknowledgment of Debt, Statute of Limitations, Implied Promise to Pay
Limitation of Actions Banking Law Debt Recovery Acknowledgment of Debt Statute of Limitations Implied Promise to Pay

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 2 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norman Charles Bucknell

Appellant/defendant

The Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Ltd.

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / High Court of Australia; on Appeal From the Supreme Court of New South Wales (full Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a letter written by the debtor constitutes a sufficient acknowledgment in writing to take the debt out of the Statute of Limitations
  2. 2 Whether the terms of the letter are consistent with an implied promise to pay the debt

Ratio Decidendi

By majority (Dixon and McTiernan JJ.; Evatt J. dissenting), the letter of 20th December 1933 constituted a sufficient acknowledgment to take the case out of the Statute of Limitations. It admitted liability in unqualified terms and did not include anything inconsistent with a promise to pay; there was nothing in the circumstances to preclude the bank from relying on the letter as an admission of liability to the full extent of the amount claimed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Order of the Supreme Court for a new trial discharged; judgment for the plaintiff (Commercial Banking Company of Sydney Limited) for the amount claimed in the writ together with interest at the rate claimed in the writ from 19th June 1934 to the date of judgment.