King v Ivanhoe Gold Corporation Limited [1908] HCA 75

King v Ivanhoe Gold Corporation Limited [1908] HCA 75

Damages for breach of contract in this context should be assessed by determining ordinary remuneration for the services rendered, with an appropriate further sum reflecting the particular risk and the promise of 'handsome' payment, not simply a proportion of the defendant’s benefit. The jury used an incorrect basis for their award, justifying a new trial.

Parties
Appellant; Plaintiff: King; Respondent; Defendant: Ivanhoe Gold Corporation Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 1908
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Damages, Measure of Damages, Breach of Contract, Remuneration for Services
Contract Law Damages Measure of Damages Breach of Contract Remuneration for Services

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

King

Appellant; Plaintiff

Ivanhoe Gold Corporation Limited

Respondent; Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the proper measure of damages in a contract where payment is unspecified and contingent on success?
  2. 2 Whether the jury may assess damages without a definite basis

Ratio Decidendi

Damages for breach of contract in this context should be assessed by determining ordinary remuneration for the services rendered, with an appropriate further sum reflecting the particular risk and the promise of 'handsome' payment, not simply a proportion of the defendant’s benefit. The jury used an incorrect basis for their award, justifying a new trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • New trial ordered (decision of Supreme Court affirmed)