Anderson v Densley [1953] HCA 47

Anderson v Densley [1953] HCA 47

The statutory requirement under s. 23(1)(b) is not met unless there is a writing evidencing the engagement of the agent for the particular transaction in respect of which commission is claimed. In this case, the only writing was in respect of the earlier, uncompleted transaction, and not in respect of the later completed sale; therefore, the plaintiff cannot recover commission for the completed transaction.

Parties
Appellant; Defendant: William Charles Anderson; Respondent; Plaintiff: Mark Densley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 1953
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for the defendant with costs including two refreshers.
Legal Topics
Commission Agents, Requirement for Written Engagement, Evidencing Appointment in Writing Under Statute
Principal and Agent Contract Law Commission Agents Requirement for Written Engagement Evidencing Appointment in Writing Under Statute

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Charles Anderson

Appellant; Defendant

Mark Densley

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Queensland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s. 23(1)(b) of The Auctioneers and Commission Agents Acts, 1922 to 1951 (Q.) requires an express written engagement for a commission agent to be entitled to sue for commission
  2. 2 Whether the documents in evidence constitute sufficient compliance with the statutory requirement for a written engagement or appointment in respect of the completed sale

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory requirement under s. 23(1)(b) is not met unless there is a writing evidencing the engagement of the agent for the particular transaction in respect of which commission is claimed. In this case, the only writing was in respect of the earlier, uncompleted transaction, and not in respect of the later completed sale; therefore, the plaintiff cannot recover commission for the completed transaction.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for the defendant with costs including two refreshers.

Orders

  • Order that judgment below be set aside.
  • Judgment entered for the defendant with costs, including two refreshers.