Brundza v Robbie & Co [1952] HCA 68

Brundza v Robbie & Co [1952] HCA 68

The plaintiff could not recover at common law because payment to Liubinskas did not create privity with Robinson, and no holding out sufficient to support common law liability was established. The £360 was unrecoverable from Robinson because it related to a Brighton Beach property with which Robinson had no connection. However, Liubinskas was a sub-agent of Robinson within the Real Estate Agents Acts in relation to the North Fitzroy property, was negotiating for its sale, and received the £540 in respect of that transaction while acting in that capacity. Section 34 of the Real Estate Agents Act 1930 Vict. therefore made Robinson personally liable for the £540 despite the absence of common...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Appeal in an Action for Money Had and Received Concerning Liability of a Licensed Real Estate Agent for Money Received by an Alleged Sub Agent / Appeal From Judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria (sholl J.) Giving Judgment for the Defendant
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court discharged; judgment entered for the plaintiff for £540 with costs including costs of pleadings, interrogatories and discovery.
Legal Topics
['money Had and Received' 'actual Authority' 'holding Out and Estoppel' 'real Estate Agent Liability' 'sub Agent Liability' 'fraud by Sub Agent']
['agency' 'restitution' 'real Property' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['money Had and Received' 'actual Authority' 'holding Out and Estoppel' 'real Estate Agent Liability' 'sub Agent Liability' 'fraud by Sub Agent']

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal in an Action for Money Had and Received Concerning Liability of a Licensed Real Estate Agent for Money Received by an Alleged Sub Agent / Appeal From Judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria (sholl J.) Giving Judgment for the Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Liubinskas had actual authority from Robinson to receive the plaintiff's money so that payment to Liubinskas was payment to Robinson." 'Whether Robinson held out Liubinskas as his agent to receive the money and was estopped from denying liability.' 'Whether s. 34 of the Real Estate Agents Act 1930 Vict. made Robinson personally liable for money received by Liubinskas.' 'Whether the plaintiff could recover the £360 paid in relation to the Seymour Grove, Brighton Beach property and the £540 paid in relation to the North Fitzroy property.']

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff could not recover at common law because payment to Liubinskas did not create privity with Robinson, and no holding out sufficient to support common law liability was established. The £360 was unrecoverable from Robinson because it related to a Brighton Beach property with which Robinson had no connection. However, Liubinskas was a sub-agent of Robinson within the Real Estate Agents Acts in relation to the North Fitzroy property, was negotiating for its sale, and received the £540 in respect of that transaction while acting in that capacity. Section 34 of the Real Estate Agents Act 1930 Vict. therefore made Robinson personally liable for the £540 despite the absence of common...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs; judgment of the Supreme Court discharged; judgment entered for the plaintiff for £540 with costs including costs of pleadings, interrogatories and discovery.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed with costs.' 'Judgment of the Supreme Court discharged.' 'In lieu thereof enter judgment for the plaintiff for £540 with costs including the costs of pleadings interrogatories and discovery.']