Phillips v Ellinson Brothers Pty Ltd [1941] HCA 35

Phillips v Ellinson Brothers Pty Ltd [1941] HCA 35

The High Court held that, as the court was evenly divided, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria was affirmed. The legal principle applied was that a trial judge has no power to disregard the verdict of the jury and enter judgment for the defendant unless leave had been expressly reserved to do so. However, Starke and Williams JJ. considered that where there was no evidence to support a jury verdict, the judge could direct judgment for the defendant. The contract in question was entire and indivisible and subject to the Statute of Frauds; thus, the oral variation was ineffectual, and there was no basis in the evidence to award the plaintiff judgment or partial payment.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: Eric Granville Murray Phillips; Respondent; Defendant: Ellinson Brothers Proprietary Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria Following a Trial With Jury and Judgment Entered for the Defendant Notwithstanding the Jury's Verdict for the Plaintiff
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Supreme Court judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Contract Variation, Partial Performance, Statute of Frauds, Power of Trial Judge to Enter Judgment Contrary to Jury Verdict, Practice – New Trial Procedures
Contract Law Civil Procedure Contract Variation Partial Performance Statute of Frauds Power of Trial Judge to Enter Judgment Contrary to Jury Verdict Practice – New Trial Procedures

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Granville Murray Phillips

Appellant; Plaintiff

Ellinson Brothers Proprietary Limited

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria Following a Trial With Jury and Judgment Entered for the Defendant Notwithstanding the Jury's Verdict for the Plaintiff

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial judge of the Supreme Court of Victoria has power to enter judgment contrary to the verdict of the jury except pursuant to leave reserved to move for judgment
  2. 2 Whether an oral variation of a written contract of service that is subject to the Statute of Frauds is effective and can entitle recovery for partial performance
  3. 3 Whether, in this case, the evidence allowed the plaintiff to recover remuneration under the original contract or a varied arrangement

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that, as the court was evenly divided, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria was affirmed. The legal principle applied was that a trial judge has no power to disregard the verdict of the jury and enter judgment for the defendant unless leave had been expressly reserved to do so. However, Starke and Williams JJ. considered that where there was no evidence to support a jury verdict, the judge could direct judgment for the defendant. The contract in question was entire and indivisible and subject to the Statute of Frauds; thus, the oral variation was ineffectual, and there was no basis in the evidence to award the plaintiff judgment or partial payment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Supreme Court judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs; judgment for the defendant stands as originally entered by the Supreme Court of Victoria