Blackham v Haythorpe [1917] HCA 21

Blackham v Haythorpe [1917] HCA 21

Defendants, while acting as agents for the plaintiff, failed to disclose material information about the probable higher price the Crown would pay for the land and acquired the property themselves, making a profit when selling to the Crown. This nondisclosure was a breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference between what was paid to him and what the Crown paid the defendants.

Parties
Appellants, Defendants: Blackham and Another; Respondents, Plaintiffs: Haythorpe and Another
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 1917
Procedural Posture
Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Duty, Principal and Agent, Non Disclosure, Remedies for Breach
Equity Agency Law Fiduciary Duty Breach of Duty Principal and Agent Non Disclosure Remedies for Breach

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

Parties

Blackham and Another

Appellants, Defendants

Haythorpe and Another

Respondents, Plaintiffs

Procedural Posture

Appeal / On Appeal From the Supreme Court of South Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants, as agents for plaintiff, breached their fiduciary duty by failing to disclose material information regarding the value of the land and the likelihood of a higher purchase price by the Crown;
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the profit made by the agents from the sale to the Crown;
  3. 3 Whether the agency relationship had been terminated prior to the material transaction.

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants, while acting as agents for the plaintiff, failed to disclose material information about the probable higher price the Crown would pay for the land and acquired the property themselves, making a profit when selling to the Crown. This nondisclosure was a breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the difference between what was paid to him and what the Crown paid the defendants.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to recover £395 with interest at 5.5 per cent per annum from 15 June 1909 until payment and costs.